Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Was speedily deleted by Casliber as G11 at 06:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petcube

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

Appears to be promotion. References are insufficient to establish notability. Rhadow (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous avertising for a private company with no indications of notability or significance. Article exists solely to promote the business. Created by Special:Contributions/L7starlight currently indef blocked for promotionalism. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Consensus is clearly in favour of "keep" and nominator appears to have withdrawn the nomination. In regards to the move discussion, AfD is not the place/venue for that, please refer to Wikipedia:Requested moves for that, should you wish to pursue a move. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur City Police

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allahabad Police. Every district unit of Uttar Pradesh Police doesn't need an article. In my opinion, the page isn't notable enough on its own, though it can be a possible search term. And, the infobox looks like it has been copied from NYPD, so it should either be merged with Uttar Pradesh Police or deleted.
SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Edit - Also, apparently, the creator of the page is infinitely blocked because of "Disruptive editing / creation of inappropriate pages". SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scope of this Afd is limited to this page so I would I would comment about this page only, not the page creator. This article has an independent reliable coverage by India Today which makes it pass WP:RS. Also Kanpur is one of the most notable Indian city, so the cities law and police administration is also notable. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @SshibumXZ: Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Article creator's currently block is not a justification for deletion. Please don't make similar arguments in any future AFD...

Articles that are weak, but are on notable topics, are not supposed to be deleted. The contributor with concerns over the current state of the article is supposed to use our usual means to trigger article improvement -- like noting their concerns on the article's talk page. You didn't do this, did you?

Exceptions are made, rarely, when repeated good faith to reach a compromise version on an article on a particularly controversial topic are deadlocked.

As Anoptimixtix noted, police departments of major cities are going to be notable topics, as compliance with WP:BEFORE confirms.

Please be more careful... Geo Swan (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Geo Swan:. First of all, thank you for explaining the Wikipedia guidelines, I went through WP:Before and I stand corrected, the article is notable. And would never nominate an AfD before going through the sources from now on. Secondly, I would like to point out that Kanpur unit of Uttar Pradesh Police is the law-enforcement agency of Kanpur Nagar District, not Kanpur City, there's a minute difference between the two, so, shouldn't the article be moved to say, either Kanpur Police or Kanpur District Police?
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 13:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This article is about a department that sees over a city with population of almost 30,00,000. Has enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG as well. I agree with user:SshibumXZ. It should be moved to "Kanpur Police". I will request the move if this discussion is closed as keep. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and has cverage in reliable sources --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant People of the 20th century

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

Inclusion criteria too vague. "Significant" is subjective enough to include anyone with a wiki article. This approaches WP:NOTDIR as it's practically a list of anyone. Per instructions on standalone lists of people at WP:LISTPEOPLE, the lack of selection criteria is a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nominator. no definition means "list of people" and I'm not on it. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "list of everyone you've ever heard of (with some you may not have)" is entirely not meant to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No clear inclusion criteria and subjective list concept. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly POV WP:LISTCRUFT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that Bashkansky satisfies neither the notability guidelines for professors nor the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wkipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Bashkansky

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

Fails WP:PROF. Citations in Google scholar are 18, 17, 16, .... so he cannot be shown an authority in his subject. None of the other WP:PROF standards are met. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof as clearly shown by nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The conference he supposedly founded shows no evidence of being significant enough to be notable, let alone to convey notability on its founder. No other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I had originally PRODed this article. It was contested and I asked for his review. I concur with the assessment, and also found nothing on my own that would suggest the subject meets either PROF or the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ORT Braude is umm, far from world class. What did give me some pause, in terms of assertion of notability, were the claims that he was behind a new psychometric method in Israel (which actually could confer notability on different grounds than PROF - just plain GNG) - however checking for sources in Hebrew on this (and on him in general) - doesn't lead to much (basically only to - [1] + promotion from ORT) - so that's a no-go either.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability requirements for professors --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling in by clearly agreeing with nom. I cannot see any indication the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF guidelines. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew in light of the availability of new sources (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 15:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extraaa Innings T20

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

Non-notable studio show, no sources ViperSnake151 Talk 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article can be improved by paragraphing rather than its present written style. Found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 though unsure about the notability of these websites. —Vignyana^talk 15:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about a studio show which analysis prematch conditions of the cricket pitch, atmosphere conditions as well as postmatch outcomes of very notable cricket tournament Indian Premier League per sources cited by Vignyana. The sources are Zee News, India TV, the fifth and sixth source by the user That is Indian Express and Daily Mail are very reliable and reputed passes WP:RS. These sources by the user Vignyana are secondary, independent of the subject and multiple passes WP:GNG. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has no sources at all. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Have added references given by Vignyana in the lead section of the article. Anoptimistix (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been drafting a revised version of the article, which would take another 2 days to complete. I plan to add the revision under the existing page. Vignyana^talk 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw what was done, nice work! Consider the nomination withdrawn. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Tobak

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. This has been around for months with little expansion, making it appear that notability will not ever be attained. South Nashua (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page definitely fails notability tests, and I find it noteworthy and interesting that the page's creator has been banned from editing Wikipedia pages. MountMichigan (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Santiago Dahl

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a filmmaker lacking sufficient coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see any significant independent coverage so he fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Simoné

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greenwich Public Schools. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cos Cob Elementary School

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

Elementary schools are generally not notable. Fbdave (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greenwich Public Schools: Appears to fail GNG, but the target seems plasubile. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are non-notable. Carrite (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Carrite. I notice that Greenwich Public Schools lists the school but doesn't even wikilink to this article, which is good because there is nothing in the article at all. --do ncr am 03:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also, Jamster93, it helps if you explain why the article should not be deleted because it is always possible that an admin will see a consensus to do so Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased anime characters

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

List fails to establish notability of the topic. By its own admittance "Characters frequently die in anime, but are also frequently resurrected.". The article doesn't establish any criteria for what characters it includes and is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you look at the list as well, the characters chosen aren't all main characters. I just don't see the need to list every dead anime character nor the need to restrict the scope to just anime as opposed to including manga or all fiction. There are certain rare cases where the death of a fictional character can be notable—one that comes to mind is when the character Rikiishi died in Ashita no Joe, 700 fans in Japan took to the streets in a funeral procession and a Buddhist priest was called. However, few anime deaths would be so notable or have sufficient coverage in reliable sources just focusing on their deaths to warrant an independent article. (even the case I mentioned would just be mentioned on its main article, and it is) Opencooper (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. List has no encyclopedic value. What do you do about characters that are dead at the start of the story or have died in the finale/epilogue? No other such similar lists for genres. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It reads like an essay/original research to me, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. There is no way this article is being deleted. Jamster93 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jamster93 where would I look to find where reliable secondary sources (e.g., newspapers, books, magazines) have covered deaths in Anime? Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. "nom" is advocating deletion, not keeping. 2. Just because you say it isn't happening doesn't mean it isn't happening. See also WP:PPOV 206.41.25.114 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per "nom" you say???? Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is way to indiscriminate. Listing All of the death in a show like Death Note alone would make this article way too long and if a particular death if important enough to the seriss it can be listed in either the page for the series or the character, if they are independently notable.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if a character's death is relevant enough to a specific series or has received enough third-party coverage, then it would already be discussed somewhere in an article or a list about the series itself. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is deceased here on Wikipedia. I want to add that in Puella Magi Madoka Magica per nom the characters are brought back multiple times. When you say "deceased" do you mean mostly dead, or all dead? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we go that route we should include the obvious example Dragon Ball, where most of the main cast have been deceased multiple times.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Yozamp

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

Actress who has just one role and that is it. (If not a delete then a redirect to the film) Anyway appears not notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete only one role and that was not significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One non-starring credit? C'mon. Way WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Adventures

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Was considering putting one up earlier for this as well, and I do agree it should be deleted unless if anything can prove it is actually notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Unless something can prove that it is notable, it should be deleted. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately the arguments raised for deletion vs redirection are stronger - this article describes a group of people so anyone searching for it would probably not be searching for relations on a national level. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Australians

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

fails WP:GNG. there is no inherent notability of ethnic groups in a country articles. the Mongolian community represents 0.005% of Australia's population . one of the sources provided looks totally unreliable. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason to have this as an article, as it has basically no useful information. Elliot321 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia–Mongolia relations. Plausible search term. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia–Mongolia relations per Ivar. This content is largely already there, and I agree that this isn't a particularly large or otherwise noteworthy population group. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is about an expatriate group, where as relations articles are normally about diplomatic relations. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good point. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no inherent notability for a group based on ethnic origin. A redirect to Australia–Mongolia relations would be off-topic, as this is about a group of residents, not about the diplomatic relations between the two countries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. A small group who have not been the subject of significant coverage. If we want to note their population size somewhere, then Mongolian diaspora and Asian Australians could appropriately report the 1,235 figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Radial-G: Racing Revolved. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tammeka Games

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

A search does not turn up sufficient references for it to pass WP:NCORP. While their game Radial-G is obviously notable, the studio is not, and notability is not inherited per WP:INHERIT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the game. Was that attempted? --Izno (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the article is a possible WP:COI, I believed any redirect I made might be reverted and I would be forced to do an AFD, so I decided to pre-empt that by simply doing an AFD. Also, I don't really believe it's a plausible redirect, being an extremely small indie studio._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I speedied this as an unremarkable business, but the tag was removed by the article creator.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radial-G. All relevant video game reliable sources custom Google search coverage is about the game, thus the company's title should redirect there as a common search phrase. Try redirecting (even if it means being reverted) before coming to AfD. The redirect is plausible as long as any reader is likely to search for the phrase. czar 20:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radial-G: Racing Revolved; the game is more notable than the company and two separate articles are not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Republic of China Navy ships#Frigates. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of frigates of the Republic of China Navy

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

Three items do not make a list make. The article has been completely untouched since 2009. Term is too specific for a redirect. Was prod and prod-2'd, but it's not eligible since it was prodded before. This is not a notable topic for a list because there are not enough items to qualify it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Republic of China Navy ships#Frigates, where the topic is discussed in more detail, by the way, that article is in need of massive cleanup, just because a list contains merely 3 entries is not a valid reason for deletion as this otherwise does pass WP:LISTN and WP:CSC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Nothing useful to merge, would be merge if there were). No need for a separate frigate class list (without individual ships!) - unneeded fork of List of Republic of China Navy ships which is in a much better state. Note there is also List of frigate classes by country#Republic of China (Taiwan) (Zhōnghuá Mínguó Hǎijūn).Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last comment, an unneeded fork of a better article Atlantic306 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Republic of China Navy ships#Frigates. The redirect is useful for navigation. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name per above. No reason to have such a small separate list. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was the prod-2. Brad (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mainly because it's not clear whether some of the later delete !voters have factored in Jclemens's argument, which is a strong keep point. There is some discussion about a merge and a move to a different title, which I shall direct to the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Equestria

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

Not independently notable, WP:OR, effectively unsourced. Redirected but got reverted (twice), propose redirect to article on the show. Kleuske (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will find a few pieces of non-original research and add it to the article as soon as possible. User:Navarre0107 1:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Two new sources have been added that contain no original research, one is a book written by the show writers which help cite a talking point in the article, and the other is a mathematical statistics study on the population of Equestria and one of its major towns. Unless I missed one of the points, this should disqualify the page for deletion. user:Navarre0107 1:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC) (edited 2:33, 28 August 2017)

WP:OR means no original research.--Eflyjason (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, that was a typo, I didn't notice, I meant to say that I added sources that contain no original sources, I have edited my previous comment user:navarre0107 2:32 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I'm a new user, but when I looked over the rules, it seemed to be in accordance (at least the edited one is). And I for one support a new article on the 'Kingdom of Equestria'. That is, if it cited correctly. User:RainbowIsBestPony 5:38 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@SubZeroSilver, Pure conSouls, and NightShadow23: any input?--Eflyjason (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eflyjason (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: Lack notability.--Eflyjason (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the sources are fan sites and analyses. The others aren't third-party. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one of the sources are fan-created at this point, and I am currently looking for a suitable replacement for that reference. Navarre0107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ISBN 978-1476662091, Ponyville Confidential is published by a reputable house, contains extensive discussion on this and other elements of MLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in online news sites [2], [3], [4], [5]. Wow, after digging through all the Hasboro merch and press releases, and blurbs about the upcoming movie, there really is quite a lot of RS commentary on MLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further note that even if this is judged to be insufficient to demonstrate standalone notability, there certainly seems to be enough for a section in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, and a merge to that location would be more policy-based (per WP:ATD-M) than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: No notability, looks trivial (at least for me), very few refs and even that are of fan-sites, not of third parties, In my opinion it should be redirected to MLP: FIM. Pure conSouls (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the references is now a fan analysis, I'm currently searching to find non-fan analysis to replace it. Navarre0107 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017

Delete: Wikipedia:No original research. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NightShadow23:, any change of opinion with the many new added references and expanded article?-RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: While Jclemens is right that is has been mentioned in other sources, those are only mentions and do not focus on the kingdom itself, but rarther on the Show itself and therefore mention the kindom as part of it. Therefor this generates no notability for this article. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about making a "Settings" section in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic article then adding the proper information of this page to that one? - Pure conSouls (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Fim article do lack a section for the world settings. --Eflyjason (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, here. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that we'll have to find a way to condense the information properly, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hardNavarre0107 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to qualify the above with the firm expectation it will "neutrally summarize sources", refrain from original research and use reliable sources. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously mentioned, the current article has been edited as so that there are no longer original research, and all sources are reliable.--Navarre0107 (talk) , 00:46 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.201.45 (talk)

Wikia, which is cited four times, is user generated content and hence not a reliable source, much of the article is still unsourced. I maintain the article is largely WP:OR and/or badly sourced. Simply stating it's not, does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia, is not directly sourced, it is used for the transcripts of episodes, which is what the citation is for, the episodes. Is you would like, I'll attempt to find transcripts of the episodes on a different site, but either way, this does not change the fact, that the episodes are reliable sources about Equestria, while, understandably, Wikia is not.--Navarre0107 (talk) , 14:36 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As of two minutes ago, Wikia is no longer used as the link for the transcripts of the episode, so according to your definition of credible source, the page is fine.--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Though I am new with Wikipedia, I must agree with Navarre0107, you're argument over there being fan-created content is no longer really in effect, and my guess is, since Wikipedia has a citation template for shows of both fiction and non-fiction, I'm sure you should be able to use the shows themselves as citations, which they have--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added three new citations from third-party news sites, and one extra book citation, in addition to the episodes themselves still being used as a citiation.--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still non of them have the kingdom as a main topic, but the show itself, with the Kingdom as part of it. This just supports that it should be the same here: The Kingdom should be descirbed as Part of the main artile about the show. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Equestria book, is largely about the development of the Kingdom and settings of the show themselves, so that argument isn't completely valid.--RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the Hearth's Warming Eve episode citation are specifically on the founding of the Kingdom.--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree FLVSstudent417 and RainbowIsBestPony, some of these sources are indeed specifically about the kingdom. --Navarre0107 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In its current version, I see no issues, other than it could use some expanding, but honesty, what Wikipedia page cant use some expanding. It has no original research, no fan-based sources, citations from books, episodes, and third-party news sites. And it does have plenty of notability. I still say that it is well and deserves a chance to grow as a full, independent article. --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though no one has validly debated against the latest argument to keep the article, is it possibly safe to assume that the consensus is to keep the article? -Navarre0107 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the summa summarum of the above discussions, I'd say: no, it isn't safe to assume that. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Navarre0107, RainbowIsBestPony and FLVSstudent417 doing good job on the article. Maybe add more refs and specific information on the cities as well, like on Ponyville, Crystal Empire, Cloudsdale, etc. I don't want this article to be deleted as well. But if you guys don't work on it fast enough, I'm afraid that it will be deleted. Pure conSouls (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLVSstudent417 and I have both added additional refs, and I'm working on finding some more now-RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As am I :)-Navarre0107 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Still need to work on "writing from real world perspective" in my opinion. But much better than before! :) --Eflyjason (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, Pure conSouls, RainbowIsBestPony, FLVSstudent417, and myself, have all added references, and are currently working on adding more specific information. And, other than some perspective issues, as Eflyjason mentioned, I think the article is fully worth keeping.-Navarre0107 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much better than before. Problems related to WP:OR and unsourced are mainly solved. Only problem left is the in-universe style which I believe can be fixed.--Eflyjason (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some hints about writing style can be taken from Islandia (novel), Wonderland (fictional country), McDonaldland and others in Category:Fictional countries. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Eflyjason, its way better now and have many sources too. There is no issues besides the style of writing (which can be fixed easily). Definitely this article should remain. Good job, fellow ponies! 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pure conSouls: Don't forget to strike out your original vote by del :) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107, FLVSstudent417, RainbowIsBestPony, and Eflyjason: I think it will be nice to include some information about the Everfree Forest in the article too. 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navarre0107 and I have both added to a Everfree Forest section of the article :) --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the notablity of this article may be higher after the release of My Little Pony: The Movie. So keep working! 😊 --Eflyjason (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have two options:

Keep the article, but move it to Equestria per WP:COMMONNAME
Delete the article, and redirect both Equestria and Kingdom of Equestria to My Little Pony (2010 toyline). Remember that MLP is from toy maker Hasbro, and Equestria is also a prevallent location in other media within the 2010 relaunch (a.k.a. G4), so My Little Pony (2010 toyline) has a priority.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, excuse me, Equestria already redirects to the article, and there is no valid reason to delete the article. By your explanation, there would be no fictional country entries at all, and yet, theres an entire category of them. Please explain your reasoning, since we have all basically agreed to keep the article as is.- RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowIsBestPony: Beware making points with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:OTHERSTUFF. (This usage is ok here, just a friendly reminder 😉) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, also, nothing in the rules of Wikipedia, state that any page should have priority over another--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, and even if different pages were given priority, the toy line is based on the show, not the other way around. Even it was at first. And, respectively, JSH-alive, looking at your numerous flagged and questionable edits, I doubt you have the right to be telling more expierenced editors (on the topic of My Little Pony, at least) what to do - RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowIsBestPony: Friendly reminder: WP:ABP --Eflyjason (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'm just not a big fan of ultimatums, especially when they aren't completely warranted. I'm sorry if my argument got out of hand, that is completely my fault. It's just saying that's what we are required to do, when nothing particularly requires us to do it bugs me. I'm sorry. -RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping and moving to Equestria per WP:COMMONNAME --Eflyjason (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria already redirects to the page, do you mean renaming the page to just Equestria?--Navarre0107 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107: Yes. That would be a more common name 😊 --Eflyjason (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eflyjason: But Equestria already redirects to this page, it seems redundant to completely recreate the article, just to change its name. - Navarre0107 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107: Moving does NOT mean cut-and-paste move, but rather move the whole page with history by requesting move, and make "Kingdom of Equestria" redirect back to "Equestria". So there is no need for recreating the article. And read WP:COMMONNAME too, which states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." But anyway, we shouldn't discuss about moving here in deletion request. If nesseary and the article is kept, I will request move after this discussion is over, and we can discuss it there. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eflyjason:, thanks for the clarification, it was just confusing me a little, of course we can do that. And it looks like, by all accounts, the page will be kept, so no problem there. :) --Navarre0107 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the article and its current name, I definitely agree with what, RainbowIsBestPony and Navarre0107 said. Even "Equestria" redirects to this page. I don't think its must to change its name to simply Equestria. 😕 Pure conSouls (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Pure conSouls, Navarre0107, and RainbowIsBestPony, because Equestria redirects to the page, I doubt we would need to change the name.--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent approvals of keeping from the majority of the users involved within this deletion article, and the relative inactivity within the last twenty-four hours, is it now safe to assume that we have come to consensus to keep the article? Of course, we need to resolve the issue over renaming the article to simply, Equestria, but that's really more a topic for the talk page than a articles of deletion page.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I just created a new section of the Equestria talk page specifically for the debate over renaming the article.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's better to wait until the normal end date and let admin decide. No need to rush. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no in-universe evidence that the land's full name is the "Kingdom of Equestria", and not sure if we can call it a kingdom at all, since that fictional land is not ruled by a king. So, should the article be kept, it must simply be renamed Equestria. But Equestria already redirects to... Don't worry. You can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for assistance.
In the age of the audiovisual media being most influential forces, some of you may want to think the current (a.k.a. "G4") MLP toys are by-product of FIM TV series. But technically, it's the other way round. You know Hasbro is a toy maker. The TV shows like this (as well as animated shorts, animated video films and, sometimes, theatrical feature-length films) is one of marketing strategies used by major toy companies these days. FIM is a part of the 2010 relaunch of MLP, and even the toy descriptions are set in the fictional universe of Equestria. It's commissioned by Hasbro (thorugh Hasbro Studios) after all. So, if the article is going to be deleted, both Equestria and Kingdom of Equestria must be redirected to My Little Pony (2010 toyline), NOT My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Equestria is also the main location of the upcoming theatrical film.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing

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

Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. These quotes, which basically say "I condemn this attack and I offer my sincere condolences", from world leaders or notable figures, are not connected in any way other than by the incident. However, notability is not inherited, and there is no encyclopedic value in keeping a list of quotes that are already sufficiently summarized in the main article itself. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This page supports content on the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing article. If you feel inclined, it should be merged with the main article. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 03:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supports the main article? What does that even mean Tetizeraz? There is nothing encyclopedic about a list of quotes pretty much repeating each other. Here is a fragment of the main article: "The bombing was condemned and condolences were offered by the leaders and spokespeople of many countries". It summarized dozens of these quotes effectively in one sentence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These reactions, made by the embassies of many countries, are pretty common. That's why I'm suggesting that it should, after the very least, be merged with the main article about the bombings. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 04:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on 2016 Lahore bombing. Vorbee (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2016 Lahore suicide bombing and likely reduce content. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Vorbee and Power~enwiki can you specify what you both would like to see merged? Pakistan's reaction is already noted in the main article and the world's condolences are sufficiently summarized as well. What remains useful from this list of quotes saying essentially the same thing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- the main article already contains a section on the reactions: 2016_Lahore_suicide_bombing#Reactions, which is sufficient. There are no incoming links apart from the main article, so no need to keep a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. There is no need for a separate article just for this. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per precedence. Articles like this are common for e.g. Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack - Mfarazbaig (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mfarazbaig read WP:OSE. Just because there is a precedent for doing something wrong (the reaction articles or, more accurately, quote farms) does not mean we cannot start fixing it in accordance with the policies I outlined.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those who wish to merge, it would be so much more helpful if you describe what you want merged. However, in total honesty, a merge is both clumsy and unnecessary. Granted, if the main article did not have a section devoted to the response of this incident, then merging makes a little sense but that is not the case here. I hope the closer notices that in their decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TheGracefulSlick, how about you start nominating the reaction articles of terror attacks in West too, to avoid WP:BIAS. Also, the main article did have a reaction section. See here - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mfarazbaig WP:AGF. I am not going to recklessly begin mass nominating reaction articles for deletion without analyzing them. Not all of them are quote farms like this one. Some of them actually are useful and devoid of WP:SYNTH because they are much more than a condolences page. The fact the main article had a reaction section with quotes saying essentially the exact same thing isn't really a sound argument so I do not know how you want me to address that other than by saying it was justly removed for the same reasons I nominated this "article" (quote farm).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm inclined to say this should be merged into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, but merging every single item would be contrary to WP:UNDUE. The problem is, I don't see any good way to decide which particular items are the most significant, so maybe just leaving this as a separate article is the best thing, and a selective merge would be my next choice. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith you can easily express what you want merged here. It would make it so much easier for me and the closing admin. I do not know anything useful from this quote farm since the main article summarizes it very efficiently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer. To start with, I'm opposed to turning Wikipedia into a newspaper, reporting on current events. But, we seem to be way past that point already, so that's a lost cause. So, given that we're doing this, collecting quotes doesn't seem unreasonable. If it were just a few quotes, it would make sense to in-line them into the article. Since it's so many, in-lining them seems to me like it would be a distraction from the main subject of the article. And, to address your specific question, I don't have a good way to decide which are worth in-lining and which are not. So, that sort of backs me into thinking we should just keep it as a stand-alone list. I recognize that this isn't a particularly good argument, so I've amended my initial comment to weak keep. I hope this reply was useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quote farm with no importance, notability, or encyclopedic value of repetitive condolences. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The precedent and consensus has been in favour of keeping these articles for major terrorist incidents. We should have a consistent approach project-wide. AusLondonder (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder:, I agree, we should be consistent...but only with following policy. Which policy are you referring to in order to support keeping this quote farm? Indeed, there is a precedent to keep these "articles", simply to avoid the initial clutter when the actual article is fresh. However, doing something wrong several times, creating this "precedent", is not an actual rationale. Regardless, this incident is over a year old and traffic on the page has cleared up significantly. Nothing here has any encyclopedic substance or material not already appropriately explained in the main page. We should be creating a new refreshing precedent: adhereing to policy; in this case, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABILITY.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the main article: 2016_Lahore_suicide_bombing#Reactions. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. For example, the info about the hash tag might be interesting, while such generic statements as The Government expressed strong condemnation of the terrorist attack and supported the Pakistani Government's efforts at fighting terrorism are not. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Precedent has indeed been to keep these kind of articles. This one is also well sourced and the reactions are of value. The precedent trumps here.BabbaQ (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is not policy, and you are well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's embarrassing that an article simply having sources in it means it should remain an article indefinitely—there are references for individual quotes but none discuss the topic of reactions as a whole! Reywas92^Talk 06:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems a remarkable pointless split from a page that could easily include this information, I find myself agreeing with the noms comments on this regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I see no reason to exhaustively list every reaction to an event. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Great Britain in the Seven Years' War#Annus Mirabilis (1759). (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annus Mirabilis of 1759

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

Redirect to Great Britain in the Seven Years' War#Annus Mirabilis (1759). There is no need for there to be a stand-alone article. --Nevé –selbert 17:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Great Britain in the Seven Years' War#Annus Mirabilis (1759), though that section of the main article already has much more detail than this article. Might not be a great deal to merge. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge seems reasonable. Artw (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge suggestion. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sharmaa

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (here) was "Person not notable, sources mentioned are also not valuable!" On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:BLP, see also Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers for notability criteria related to Actresses. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web-ephemeral refs, full of OR, orphan, and created by a short-lived SPA acct...seems likely a vanity or fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Could use more references like The Telegraph but needs TLC and refs primarily, not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coast (clothing)

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

Trivial coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage has been much expanded since nomination. Due to the company's choice of a common word for their brand it has been a bit tricky to find sources. There is now enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, WP:SIGCOV, to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page seems to be fixed, a little more TLC can be done when sources are found. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebase Xi

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

Unsourced article about non-notable product. A Google search revealed no independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources (just a few passing mentions and unreliable/promotional reviews). GermanJoe (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing good, either. Rhadow (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Software used by 30% of UK public sector. Several hundred customer's worldwide. In production since 1999, new release V5.3.1 in September 2017. Extended with major cloud PaaS offering following $2m investment. The software may not be referenced widely on the web but by any normal standard it is notable. Dbrawlins 14:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'normal standard' on wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability which has not been met. Do you have an independent (non-company or PR) reference for the use by 30% of UK public sector claim?Dialectric (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Me!

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

Non-Notable novel or book. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, 'debute novel' with no notable coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no indication that this novel (published last week) has received any of the coverage we'd need to show notability. The publishing house is Lulu (company), which shows it to be a self-publishing press. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hempel

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

the information is incorrect and intusive Sitathapar (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think all of references are fake and its better to use from speedy deletion tag Mr.ref (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Short, but perfectly adequately sourced. No sign of anything "fake" in the references, and the coverage is sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where does the idea of "fake" come from? Is it because the references are from well known newsoutlets? Yes we know that the media spouts rubbish, but our policy is to collect that rubbish into articles once enough of them spout the same rubbish (i.e. WP:GNG). Obviously some outstanding scandal in the pre-internet era. And probably we will never know who the real perps where. Agathoclea (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news and that is all the sourcing adds up to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am gob-smacked. Johnpacklambert called for deletion, asserting a lapse from WP:NOTNEWS... Hempel's role is described in books like Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks. Did you bother to perform due diligence, prior to leaving your delete opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable actor in nuclear weapons proliferation, as per solid sources provided, including a book. XavierItzm (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - note: nominator wrote that the article was "intusive" -- they probably meant "intrusive". If someone is an otherwise non-notable person, who finds themself the subject of flash-in-the-pan news coverage for a single event, then we would consider deletion arguments based on intrusiveness. However, Hempel was a notable person, at the center of a scandal that has generated long-running coverage, such as this one from 2016.

We keep inaccurate articles on notable topics, after seeting in motion our usual steps to get them corrected. Sitathapar, if you are going to contribute here, never argue that articles should be deleted, simply because you think they are incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple book apps in a cursory BEFORE. Intrusiveness would not fly for a notable BLP, and definitely not for a long dead bio.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep (Assertions that "information is incorrect," and "references are fake" are contravened by WP:RS.) Article needs improvement, but it is solidly sourced and both scholarly articles and books exist form which it can be expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are all these alleged good sources and long context, I would like to see them added to this article, instead of just people assering they exist and leaving the article in shambles after a drive-by save of a substandard quality entry in Wikipedia. AfD is not meant for cleanup, but too many editors take this as an excuse to not clean up articles at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, it's pretty interesting that, according to material and sourcing in the modest improvements made by a couple of editors, this wartime Nazi officer spend decades clandestinely shipping nuclear material and technology around the world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Beintehan

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL this film doesn't even exist yet. The single source simply says the film is looking to cast roles and gives the weebly page people can download an audition form. Fails WP:NFILM. Dammitkevin (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a brief and badly written article, which hardly says what this film is about. Vorbee (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing makes it clear this film will be notable. Some films are notable even if they never are made, but this is not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of the Warren Family

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

No references to confirm notability and none I can find with Google for the title or the author, although the authors name does through up a few useless results on social media. Article possibly created by author. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Meets WP:GNG as no sources whatsoever can be found. --Hazarasp (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No trace of any such published work found outside the Wikipedia article. The only traces of the supposed author are user-generated. This looks like one of a pair of hoax articles. (The other article was speedied). • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)

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

Non-notable corporate executive, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No demonstrated notability as an executive or scientist. Created by the same DUCK paid editor who created this promotional article on Schwartz's company Biorebus, and our tolerance of such articles has waned since this article was last subject to an AfD in 2013. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the second time that the nominator has taken this BLP to AfD. It was kept. Notability, if anything, has increased since then. Keep for same reasons as before. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm as allergic to corporate promotionalism as anyone—although this scientist's foray into the private sector was apparently motivated by the decidedly un-selfish goal of curing cancer—but I agree that there has been no substantial change since the last AfD. The subject's citation record demonstrated notability in 2013 (WP:PROF#C1), and it still does so now. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there is not enough substantial and non-self-published coverage for this topic to be notable. Google Hits are not a gauge of notability because among other things they do include a lot of stuff that isn't substantial or non-self-published. Also, if I am allowed to state such an opinion, can we not use strong words such as "tyranny" when discussing what a web URL on a website is going to link to? Tyranny refers to things that gets people actually hurt or even killed, much larger in scope and more serious than this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Di Salvo

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

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

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

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

Despite the bombardment of references, this seems to be a non-notable author. Most of the citations are self-published sources or passing mentions of Di Salvo, and a search for sources myself returns pretty much the same. Note : I declined an A7 tag soon after creation with the suggestion it should go to PROD or AfD instead; unfortunately this wasn't followed up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--i think that this note I declined an A7 tag is correct.And if there is some editing to do is wellcome.Any suggestion? Cavecanem101 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was tempted to send this article to AfD before, but I thought the nominator's A7 rejection comment meant that there are significant Italian sources. Since that's not the case, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Plenty of references point to works written by the subject, but he doesn't seem to be the subject any in-depth reliable coverage. Rentier (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - I think 1,2 million entries on google are enough to keep this page.[6].Perhaps some experienced editor should integrate notes and sources.93.44.55.169 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — 93.44.55.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A quick Google search shows 2.25 million hits for Donald Trump's hair colour, but strangely enough we don't have an article for that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that this is a real stupid reply. Google refer of articles in pages where you will (anyway) find in the same page "Donald Trump + hair + colour" - i make a sample search ONLY on name and surname with "+" - and i posted link to... If want to be serious ok. If want to joke...Cavecanem101 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Ritchie? I thought you were a more mature than that. Rather than taking a logical approach to things, you feel like wanting to simply joke around. Do you honestly think you can compare hair color to a living person, who people affirming the retention of this page seriously are putting their time and energy into making a page for the good of the hundreds who want to read the page? Not what I expected of a Wikipedia editor of your caliber. Shame on you, Ritchie. Shame on you. 98.26.19.147 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair is a real debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Rentier's point, the article subject does not seem to have accrued significant coverage about himself. He has written about some notable subjects, but very few of the cited sources cover the article subject in depth, which fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. After viewing nihlus kryik's comments, it is clear the subject fails WP:GEOSCOPE--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

Research

I read this comment and although I'm not practical I'm following this page.I used non google but the "find source" indicated at the top of the page.

News - 1890 results-[7].
Books - 2.190 results-[8].
Scholar - 24 quotations-[9].

Cavecanem101 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — Cavecanem101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Retain- As creator of the page, I can give you some reasons why I thought the subject of this page is notable enough for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. Firstly, clear ways that good Wikipedia editors determine notability is through clear Google searches. As others have said, if you Google "Michele Di Salvo" on the American AND Italian sites, you will find tens of thousands of entries. While my additions of appropriate references may not have been adequately representative of the subject, plenty more exist on the internet that can be used. I highly recommend that instead of pursuing a deletion, which should, in my opinion; be reserved for obvious vandalism, incomplete and incohesive articles, and ones that are advertisements. This article was created because I have heard about and greatly admire his work, not because I had any need to make money off of creating this page. Further, to prevent misunderstanding, this great admiration never carried into this article into nefarious forms like advertisement. I believed that he was well deserved of a Wikipedia page, was plenty notable enough, and has produced enough work to designate a page within the world's largest reference site. What I've noticed many editors on Wikipedia do detract from the freedoms people come to Wikipedia for. Having tyrannical control over each and every Wikipedia page and writer and deleting them left and right doesn't solve anything, it just takes away a tool someone somewhere in the world could have used to learn about Michele. I wish you all will work together to make this page a perfect representative of Wikipedia values, purging it of mistakes, and strengthening it's position. This pages has had hundreds of views in the few months it's been live. Don't remove material unless it cannot be made better. Show us all with your verdict that Wikipedia isn't a hostile place, rather a place where the world can come together and educate the future. Please leave messages below if you have any questions or comments. Buddhabob (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain-I do not know all those comment on a very famous italian journalist . In anycase he is very followed and responsive on twitter @micheledisalvo.And all those discussions are really depressing.W a free wikipedia. Out wiki-dictators.(Anna from Italy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b07:6444:b7cf:bc59:1336:5396:5661 (talk) — 2001:b07:6444:b7cf:bc59:1336:5396:5661 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Ignoring the number of meatpuppets in this AfD, this article fails multiple notability guidelines per Rentier. Author also has no interest outside of Italy. — nihlus kryik (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that here you are not trying to understand and understand, but just repeat indefinitely by three editors (friends with each other) always the same thing: "delete" - ignoring everything else. for the moment you only made a bad figure in Italy. https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10155403037370528 https://twitter.com/micheledisalvo/status/904771746087280640 [ Nihlus Kryiksince google trend that fits blog searches is an index of interest or quotations?] Cavecanem101 (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :Odd that the subject of the article is aware of our current situation. This smacks of COI, and is treading to close to outing as the article subject mentions this Afd. Considering Di Salvo is a journalist, more meatsocks may be incoming--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SamHolt6 If you see the article (if need i can do a translation) you can understand what is wrote there. Are you interested? I do not think really.

Comments by the article subject are irrelevant. — nihlus kryik (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For all... this is the complete translation (in my very bad english) "Of stories about wikipedia I've heard so many, and I confess that despite my work, I have been very little busy with it. As everyone knows, Wikipedia is a "good thing" - I say it immediately to avoid possible misunderstandings on this topic - the idea of a "free and free-to-know meeting" as a major world encyclopedia with millions of "contributors" is a which fascinates and relies on itself. Not without the many risks it involves: inaccuracy, loud mistakes, often lack of sources, and the great ease with which "everything is believed" in the web, to the point "if it says wikipedia ... " I remember a case that concerned Umberto Eco, who wanted to correct some information about himself - who better than him? - his interventions were "rejected", or because they "lacked a source" or because "he was not a sufficiently authoritative contributor". There are a lot of cases in which, unfortunately and in spite of wikipedia, they are spreading misleading information on delicate topics like those related to medicine and therapies. And no, you do not say that wikipedia is "without politics and without religion and without parts." Wikipedia is managed by people, and as such sometimes "hired" and others responding to their (legitimate) personal, cultural, political, and religious convictions. Sometimes it may happen that "minority" groups in society are also "very active" on the web - and this could lead (for example, and as a paradox) that Scientology fans are much more active than Johns Hopkin's doctors ... here, how do we put it? My case is much more trivial, and I wish it was a matter of discussion rather than partisanship. In 2014 it was made - not by me that I got very little - a page about me on Wikipedia in Italy. Of course he was immediately canceled after my appointment as a journalist of the day by Beppe Grillo. And you know ... the webbe is his. [I found that something like this happened on Salvatore Aranzulla's page - you can find everything here http://www.bergamopost.it/chi-e/perche-il-mitico-salvatore-aranzulla-e-stato-cancellato-da-wikipedia /] A few months ago, before the summer, a page was published in English about me. Not bad, I did not know anything (if I did not do it better :-P), but I'm flattered. A guy sends me a private message on twitter and asks me some news to update her content. There is little harm here. Today I find out - why an Italian user informs me by sending me their links - about a sort of guerrilla about me ... ... you find it all here. This is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Di_Salvo page and this is the standing question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michele_Di_Salvo Now, I do not - really - a personal matter. But I wonder, really a page can be questioned because one wakes up one morning and says "I think I was paid" without evidence and sources or anything else? Really an editing is not "putting the source well" and counts more to say "is not good enough"? Would this be the wikipedia I mentioned at the beginning - and that everyone thinks it is and should be? And if it is so - for charity, just say it - is always the "if wikipedia says it will be true then?" I edit editing on wikipedia I understand little. I put some notes and corrected some voices. But these fake digital warriors love me a little. A bit like all the fake, the various anonymous keyboard playing online." ^[1] SamHolt6 ask how possible he know about this discussion? In article is wrote clear " A few months ago, before the summer, a page was published in English about me. Not bad, I did not know anything (if I did not do it better :-P), but I'm flattered. A guy sends me a private message on twitter and asks me some news to update her content. There is little harm here. Today I find out - why an Italian user informs me by sending me their links - about a sort of guerrilla about me ..." You are interested in the truth? obviously no! Cavecanem101 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10155403037370528

Delete--Per above.No non-trivial covg. about the subject.Cavecanem101 may be reminded that in case of excessive disruption by his virtual accomplices, the page can be protected--preventing any edit by single purpose accounts.Winged Blades^Godric 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replyto Godric "excessive disruption" ..."his virtual accomplices" have not you been prevented? do not you have any preconceptions?noooooooooAs you can see here, there is not any massive or bot, or spam, imagining (maybe in your virtual world that works so, real life is another thing).What I see is a massive call of friends on your part.if this is your way to conceive wikipedia, who loses it is wikipedia, quality and reliability. you are doing a great job (and a bad international figure, with these warming on conspiracies, multiple accounts, suspicious of all kinds)Cavecanem101 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Have a good day:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Given the number of extremely obvious sockpuppets here, none of whom are making policy-based arguments, I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this AFD until its projected expiry time. In the unlikely event that you are a genuine user who has been on Wikipedia for less than four days and have fewer than ten edits but nonetheless have managed immediately to come across the article for an extremely obscure figure, post your policy based comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michele Di Salvo and the closing admin will take them into account. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to back out of this now. I see obvious meatsocking happening in this article and I do not wish to put my account at risk. I will not be blamed for meatsocking or violating Wikipedia policy because other people are doing it. This decision lies in the hands of whatever administrator comes across the article. A tyrannical website will be a tyrannical website and I won't throw myself under the bus. Thanks for the input everyone. Buddhabob (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred F. Young

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

One of the many poor biographical stubs written by sockpuppets of Novonium. It was nominated for CSD G5 but this was declined on the basis that the subject "is a serious American historian". (I'm not sure that's a valid counter-argument to G5). But this article, while allowing its blocked creator the satisfaction of seeing some of their work surviving in the encyclopedia, adds little of value to the encyclopedia. It is an article about an academic whose bibliography is sourced to Goodreads and includes no dates, publishers or isbns; nothing is said about his study area or work, although from the one good source it appears there is much to be said. It would be better for the encyclopedia to delete this stub and allow a serious editor to create a new article about this historian, without allowing any article creation credit to the blocked editor. PamD 09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the opening line makes it sound like he was inprisoned in libraries. Also, how did the son of "polish immigrants" come to have the surname young? Was only his mother an immigrants? Did the family change their surname? Does the latter indicate they were Jews trying to pass for white to avoid discrimination as a people of color? The article begs lots of questions it does not answer and the sources are not better. Being a "serious historian" is not ground to keep an article, and being one like J. D. Haws who never misses a change to write in a more humorous vein is not grounds to delete. Haws The Mormon Image in the American Mind published by Oxford University Press may be enough alone to show him a notable historian, and elsewhere he has presented academic conference talks tracing Mormon intelectual history. However his BYU bio shows he does not take himself seriously, it would be hard to call him a "serious historian" with a straigh face. OK, maybe I am making fun of ill thought lines too much, but the net result is that we lack the sources showing that A F Young is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to check for sources? Carrite (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment put another way I see nothing that says that Young passes academic notability guideline 1, and nothing even suggesting we should expect him to pass any others. Since he did write multiple books, and our sourcing is such it is hard to say if these are academic or popular books, he might also pass the notability guidelines for writers. However none of the sources suggest that. Goodreads is a user generated site that aims to have entries on every author ever published. We aim only to cover people who have received coverage in reliable secondary material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So true. So did you spend 5 minutes or 30 seconds even checking for "coverage in reliable secondary material" or did you just rush out to vote DELETE yet again? Carrite (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of these are cited - e.g. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], reviewed: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Some coverage of him: [22]. I will stub down article - while I understand the urge to WP:TNT at current state, but the publication list is good.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links provided by Icewhiz satisfy GNG. There are many more reviews of his work, some of which are accessible without journal subscriptions. Here are two more links about The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution: Chicago tribune and American Prospect. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-cited on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Not a CV of a living historian, but core for a biography of a deceased historian. Easy pass of GNG. THIS piece calling him the "Godfather of Artisan Studies" I find particularly compelling. Carrite (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is another piece by the noted labor historian Leon Fink, "Remembering Al Young." Honest to god, I don't understand how a terrible nomination like this can be made. WP:BEFORE anyone? Carrite (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be better for the encyclopedia to delete this stub and allow a serious editor to create a new article about this historian, without allowing any article creation credit to the blocked editor." — Oh, there you go. This is a case of obsessing about the editor rather than the content, settling scores, and attempting to "punish" a vrag naroda rather than an actual notability challenge based on, y'know, notability. Ugh. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For good measure, HERE is substantial coverage of Al Young in the book "Writing Early American History," by Alan Taylor, published by University of Pennsylvania Press. TROUT for the nominator and scorn for anyone supporting the nomination... Carrite (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is an extensive memorial summarizing Dr. Young's career by the Newberry Library of Chicago. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS memorializing Young. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Staughton Lynd CITING YOUNG as one of his "mentors," along with Howard Zinn. And so on, and so forth............ Carrite (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is quite clearly a notable and influential historian. His books were widely reviewed, widely cited, and are widely held in libraries. Multiple memorials paint him as having a foundational influence on his field [23][24][25]. With that in mind, I have to say I find the nomination troubling. PamD apparently believes this to be a viable article, so is there any reason to delete it other than to WP:PUNISH the creator? If it can be expanded, what's the difference between leaving a stub and leaving a red link? What "credit" do editors get for creating articles? I certainly haven't been getting mine! – Joe (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm working on a rewrite. If anyone has a spare moment and mad investigative skills, I am not finding a DOB, which was sometime in 1925 in New York City. Feel free to dig and add!!! Carrite (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IP editor. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high number of published in-depth reviews of his books, including one in the New York Times, gives him a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR, regardless of whether he also passes WP:PROF. And separately, the seven references now in the article directly about Young himself also give him a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1 and WP:SK#3. Nom does not appear to have viewed article history or present a valid reason for deletion. For an article that has been around in some form for 10 years, it has clearly been edited by more than just one user. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Italia

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

All publicity surrounding Shayan appears to be self-generated. This article has been written primarily just by one user and reads like a vanity piece. Urismaze (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear consensus in the first AfD, which the nominator appears to have completely ignored. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. I also note that this AfD was the nominator's third edit on Wikipedia; is there something we should be told? In any case, I was tempted to clse this as being out of process; the article is ~10 years old so not written 'primarily just by one user' and for the rest, well, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — fortunavelut luna 09:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have however removed most of the PROMO, unsourced, cruft etc., which was indeed a problem. — fortunavelut luna 09:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1, WP:SK#3. Nominator clearly did not read the article or it's history and does not advance any valid reason for deletion. Regards So Why 09:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P Sreenivasa Kumar

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. No major awards or positions. No major contributions evident. Normal h-index on Google Scholar ([26]) EvergreenFir (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming it is this person [27] his cites in a very highly cited field are not yet high enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Merely being a professor is not enough; we need evidence of significant impact, and we have none. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeta Kulkarni

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

Non-notable writer. A WP:BEFORE indicates no coverage whatsoever of any depth or persistence in reliable sources. Fails the most basic requirements necessary to meet WP:ANYBIO, let alone WP:NAUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE; I cannot, per WP:ATD establish a suitable locus for any WP:R. This has gone through some tagging-detagging-retagging in its brief history, so I think it best to bring it here to establish a consensus in either direction. — fortunavelut luna 07:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One source and no known notability does not make a teacher notable. VViking_TalkEdits 14:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Viewmont Viking and WP:A7. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over-personal and promotional .Might be notable, but it would have to be done over. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Who's Who entry might hint at notability but we'd need more sources, which I can't find either. In any case, the current content is promotional, unreferenced, and unsalvageable. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sahitya Akademi is India's premier body for Indian writers particularly in Indian languages and lists her. The author writes in Marathi and hence is not going to have a significant presence in online (English) media. Article claims she has 51 published books. That should usually meet criteria of notability. Though article will need re-writing. Johnnysmitha (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Reust

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

No way this passes WP:NSPORTS as he has not played pro ball; nothing else indicates WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable.. one game in the Gulf Coast League. Spanneraol (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's definitely a professional, by the smallest margin possible, but he fails NSPORTS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way, way, way below the notability guidlines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Wusi

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

Biography of person, not meeting WP:GNG. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Looks well sourced but a lot of the sources are duplicates and none are reliable sources – the two which look like news are actually from Global Times and Human Rights Watch – and even they only mention him incidentally. Nothing approaching in-depth coverage in a reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and article does not posses in-depth sources about the subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Yasuda

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

A person of local interest, there is a lack of WP:DIVERSE coverage about this collector. The majority, if not all, of the sources are written as narratives or interviews. WP:ROUTINE also comes into play. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has existed for 9 years with no sources showing notability added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find any indication of subject meeting WP:GNG. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Resort Costa Rica

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

fails WP:ORG, the sources have been marked as questionable for many years now. coming "46th by Travel + Leisure's 2006 World's Best Top 100 Resorts Awards Readers " is hardly a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Just another run of the mill hotel franchise. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that we find a target into which we can merge this. I am hesitant to straight-out delete, because we need to improve our coverage of Central America. Also, I am not seeing anything that makes this particular less notable than entries like the Four Seasons Resort Carmelo, Uruguay or even the Four Seasons Hotel Austin. That is not to say that it necessarily should be kept as is, but if it is not, it should be merged somewhere (perhaps they all should). bd2412 T 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do they need to be merged exactly? Those other hotel articles probably should be nominated for deletion as well. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 100% promo article, discussing the hotel's "Amenities" and nothing else. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The sources that come up are passing mentions and travel guides; fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Separately, I nominated the Austin hotel for deletion too:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Hotel Austin

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Poulter

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

He's only appeared in one film, so unless he's Peter Ostrum, this article falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete role is not significant enough to overcome the general requirement of multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poulter has been significantly covered in a several sources:[28][29][30][31] He has received non-trivial international coverage in many other sources: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. The subject easily meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. I don't believe it fails the exclusionary criteria of WP:ONEEVENT because a significant role in a movie is not really a single event. Also, the subject has been covered for his role in the film as well as his indigent lifestyle.- Mr X 18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I have improved on the article~~, although it could still be fleshed out~~. But what is already there and the U.S. and international coverage of the film, is significant. A homeless man recruited from the streets for a full-length film playing a memorable role is notable. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Additional comment: I have since found an award by the Austin Film Critics Association given posthumously to the subject that further adds to his notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with more than one lead vocalist

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

About as WP:INDISCRIMINATE as you can get, while this topic has been discussed in reliable sources, they do not discuss the general concept which is the subject of this article but more specific criteria. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While vastness isn't in itself grounds for deletion, there's little evidence that the topic is notable, i.e. that there are multiple sources discussing the list subject as a coherent group. There is an AV club article "bands with more than one prominent lead singer"[42] and a Rolling Stone feature "Pass the Mic: 15 Big Hits Not Sung by the Lead Singer"[43]- but is that the same thing? How to distinguish between a band where a non-singer sings one song in a 20 year career and a band which shares vocal duties nearly equally on each track or between tracks? You could have an almost infinite series of similar articles (list of bands with 2 guitarists/drummers/bassists/etc). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a defining feature of bands. what next list of bands with more than 2 guitarists? LibStar (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining feature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

111 West 33rd Street

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

Non-notable building. Was previously PROD-tagged as such, which the article-creator disputed. That editor commented on the talkpage that indeed the only notability is due to content that another editor removed as being promotional. The underlying idea, as explained on the talkpage, sounds like it's confusing interesting with notable. Even in the full original content, the cited refs are several levels of WP:SYNTH and inheritance removed from the building itself. DMacks (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just a (very large) building. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Took a look at the owner's own web site for the building and even they don't list anything notable about it or any event that may have happened there. It's a successful renovation of a 1954 building but nothing of any notoriety to merit a stand alone article. Blue Riband► 17:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zui quan

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

Prodded as hoax, but prod removed as the article was supposedly prodded before. However, I can find no proof that it was. The article is a clear hoax, as Googling turned up no mention of "zui quan" in the aforementioned sources, nor in any other reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would need Chinese speakers knowledgible on the subject to weigh in. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to be cultural joke deriving from Drunken Master. See the Chinese language wikipedia article which is also tagged as "hoax" and relies heavily on the movie. The hoax itself might be notable, but this article isn't about the hoax. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the prod; your prod was removed by an ip then readded as shown here which is not allowed Atlantic306 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a publisher purporting to sell books on drunken boxing: https://www.plumpub.com/sales/kungfu/collbk_drunkboxing.htm According to them, it is not a distinct style; but many styles use forms which imitate a drunkard's movements as a training stage. Like the drunken monkey form of monkey style boxing, no actual drunkenness is involved; instead, the boxer consciously and soberly imitates a drunkard's movements. Is this a part of the hoax as well? Or are these books for real? I'd like someone with knowledge of kung fu styles to evaluate them before we consider deleting the article. Texas Dervish (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Texas Dervish: Those books appear to be self published. I get only 323 unique hits on Google, most of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Ten Pound Hammer. I'm sure this style of Chinese Martial Arts doesn't exist for real.98.209.191.37 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the style has largely been mythified in pop culture, but its notability as a popular myth is undeniable. It has been depicted in numerous popular kung fu movies. -Zanhe (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the crux of the problem. The article talks about this being an actual style not a myth. The closest to reality is something that may be taught within an actual style as an exercise to break away from rigidity. Treating myth as fact is a hoax.PRehse (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about questionable content, which should be purged from the article. However, the topic itself is not a hoax and the article should not be deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed a chunk of questionable material. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about something more fundamental - the whole thrust of the article. I have not voted yet but I really do see a problem.PRehse (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this problem plagues most kungfu-related articles. However, AfD is about notability of the topic, not quality of the article. Zui quan, minus the myth, is still a popular style of Chinese martial arts, and there are a significant number of Chinese books about it from serious publishers, such as Chinese Zui Quan, Zui Quan, and Overview of Chinese Martial Arts: Volume 9. Unfortunately, none of them are available online. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's no supporting evidence that this is an actual kung-fu style. It is something people seem to know about because of the movies, but the sources given are youtube videos along with non-independent and non-RS sources.Sandals1 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandals1: I guess you missed my edit adding sources as well as my comment above. This IS an actual kungfu style, and many books have been published about it. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links to Googlebooks in your edit don't show me significant independent coverage nor do the sources in the article.Sandals1 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem seems to be that there's a lack of reliable, independent sources supporting the claim this is an ancient martial arts style. Many of the article's sources are youtube videos or published by those who claim to know and teach drunken styles. As I said at the discussion at WT:WPMA#Potential Hoax article?, I know wushu instructors who teach a drunken form to some of their better students, but I've not heard any of them claim that drunken forms make up a style, much less an ancient one. Even the book review article from Kung Fu magazine says things like "according to legend", which is hardly proof--it's essentially heresay and insufficient to show WP:GNG is met. Zahne says that it's about the "notability of the topic, not the quality of the article", but there's a lack of independent evidence showing this even exists as "an ancient style and its origins are mainly traced back to the famous Buddhist and Daoist sects". I think the fact that the Chinese WP article on this topic has no sources and is considered to be of questionable authenticity is telling. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desultory

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

Subject fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Two sources (of questionable reliability) don't pass the GNG line for me. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it might be worth seeing if someone who speaks Swedish can identify any notability-establishing Swedish language sources. CJK09 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best potential source would, at the top of my head, probably be Blod, eld, död: En svensk metalhistoria. Does someone have access to it and can see to which degree Desultory figures there? /Julle (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To answer Julle's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The band has received coverage from Aftonbladet, one of Sweden's largest newspapers, for some time. I've added two citations, which triples the number of sources now in the article, which isn't saying much. ~~I'm neutral on whether the article is deleted or not.~~ GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - One review and two rated albums at AllMusic: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/desultory-mn0000247066/discography . Their biography there (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/desultory-mn0000247066/biography) is extremely terse. There are a few other refs in blogs and other sources, but their presence in the early Swedish death metal movement of the 90s, is an additional claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- AllMusic is scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as music sources go. No indications that the band has a cult status or has made a significant impact on the industry or genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Changing my position from neutral in the comment above. They have earned significant coverage by independent, reliable, authoritative sources, which point to a substantial fan base. "Cult" status is not required for notability. And, no, not every band has to "impact" the genre. Some bands just exist and make music, but this band has earned notability for its existence and, as commented upon by the sources, various persistent reincarnations. GetSomeUtah (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time to see if we can get consensus one way or another
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three albums on Metal Blade satisfies criterion 5 of WP:NBAND, and coverage from Terrorizer, Allmusic, Blabbermouth.net, and in Daniel Ekeroth's book Swedish Death Metal gives them a pass of criterion 1, and it should be borne in mind that with metal bands, a lot of the coverage that exists often doesn't come up in Google searches as it's in print magazines. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Information on Swedish subjects can be hard to find, I think there is enough findable proof of notability to assume it is notable in Sweden. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to Desultory (band), and retarget this title to Superficiality, which is the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 17:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Michig makes a convincing case. Hopefully the article would get improved to the point that the notability is clearer. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough notability established for WP:NBANDBabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Seelinger Trites

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

Fails biographical notability standards. Just being a professor does not make somebody notable, neither does publishing a few books. DrStrauss talk 19:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep given what the current CV Says: "Distinguished Professor", "simply a professor" would not apply based on WP:PROF's statements. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: That's like saying "award winning" makes someone automatically notable. I won a spelling bee in the second grade, so I'm award winning, so I'm notable. What the hell are you even on to think that just randomly slapping an adjective before your name makes you pass muster as notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is all the more true since a CV is not an indepdent, reliable source. It is a document intentionally created by the subject to boost their academic employability and their reputation. As I mentioned below, if this was a named chair it would have value, but being "distinguished" is just an adjective with no meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response would be the same as TenPoundHammer's. I could upload a CV saying I'm a professor and I'm notable per the current version of WP:PROF. Independent, reliable sources are more important. DrStrauss talk 21:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, you couldn't. Unless you have an academic website at an accredited university. While you could in theory do so then, if you did so there without actually being one it would be career suicide and if you didn't have tenure you could be sure your appointment would not be continued at best, and at worst the provost of other relevant chief academic officer would fire you instantly. If you had tenure a disclipinary hearing could reasonably be opened against you by the provost. Publicly falsifying credentials is a MASSIVE deal and is pretty much the only thing in North American academics that is guaranteed to land an academic out of a job. There is absolutely zero possibility that this woman is not a distinguished professor. Your comment above displays ignorance of how academia in North America works. These titles matter. A lot. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being British then, they don't appear to be as important here. Edit: also, you still haven't addressed the point that the "distinguished" bit is not from an independent source. Whether it would be career suicide or not is irrelevant and we shouldn't just throw away WP:IRS for the sake of preserving a hagiography. Edit: putting "distinguished" in front of someone's name does not make one distinguished, it just means she has reached a certain level of post-nominals. Surely we should judge her work by its fruits and the impact it has had on her field of study which amounts to very little. DrStrauss talk 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss: an official press release from the university verifies that she holds the academic rank of distinguished professor [44]. That is independent of her in that it is the official communications arm of her employer verifying that she holds the academic rank of Distinguished Professor. If this was a business person, it wouldn't count towards the GNG because it was a connected source, but the GNG does not apply to academics: we simply need verification that they meet one of the criteria of PROF. For verification of rank, their faculty listing is normally enough for the reasons pointed out above, but now we also have verification from an arm of the organization independent of her. Re: your last point, see David Eppstein's comment below. That someone holds a distinguished professorship is proof that she actually has had a major impact in her field. At my alma mater we had waiting lists for academics to get one of the few distinguished chairs available because of funding concerns. These aren't just handed out like candy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Distinguished Professor" at a research university is notability according to WP:PROF. Unlike what TPH seems to think, it's a formal title, not a random adjective, and indicates she is an authority in her field. I added the necessary information to support WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Four important books, one held in over a thousand libraries. We'll still need to track down the book reviews which will prove NAAUTHOR, , but that's routine. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability for authors is not passed by having your work widely held. It is passed by having your work reviewed by sources that are reliable and selectively only review works they feel are of significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Being a "distinguished professor" does not meet any of our guidelines for academic notability. Being a "distinguished professor" is not the same as holding a "named chair", which she clearly does not. So she can not pass on those guidelines. Here contributions to the field of English-langauge literature are not significant enough to meet prong 1 of academic notability. She meets no academic notability criteria, and so is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is also an appaling failure of GNG. World Cat listing of works is not a sign of notability. Notability as an author derives from indepth reviews of works by the subject. Everything else is works so closely connected with the subject that they are in no way 3rd party independent reliable secondary sources. We cannot have articles built from a subjects CV, websites and directory listings, we need more substantial sources than this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you have confused the GNG with WP:PROF. We only need to show that the person is an authority in the field, or holds a distinguished or named professorship in a major university(or any the other specific alternatives) ; Are you aware that these two guidelines are alternatives, not that the specialized guideline is only a presumption? I don't see why you even mention GNG, when that is not the applicable guideline. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert and DGG: maybe, but bear in mind the proposal at WT:PROF. Still a proposal I know, but fingers crossed xD DrStrauss talk 21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm minded of the people who do handsprings over someone being a "Vice President" at a bank, not knowing that banks give out "Associate/Assistant/Deputy/Executive VP" titles to all middle-managers, pretty much like cupcakes at the company picnic. No doubt there are colleges who paste "Esteemed and Exalted Distinguished Professor" titles too, in lieu of higher salaries and plush furnishings in their offices. Does the subject meet the GNG, NAUTHOR or PROF? No. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at research universities, where it is actually quite difficult to get. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment: @SwisterTwister and DGG: please note that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline...supersedes GNG per this well-attended RfC. DrStrauss talk 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. each guideline can and does specify the relationship. The RfC you mention dealt with NSPORTS, and its conclusion has been repeatedly challenged in individual AfDs. About 2/3 of them have followed the RfC, and 1/3 have not. The consensus on a RfC or anything else is not what is said there, but what is done in consequence. Some RfCs are consistently adopted without dissent. Others are not. We make the rules in WP, and we can make them however we please within basic policy. We can then interpret them however the consensus wishes to, and make whatever exceptions the consensus accepts. (The net result for me is that sports AfDs are so entirely frustrating that I no longer participate, because it is impossible to tell what rules will be used.) The role of the closer is to interpret the discussion, paying attention to policy-based arguments. WP:N is not policy, but a guideline, and attempts to elevate it to a policy have been repeatedly rejected. The GNG is one part of the WP:N guideline, and it says specifically that it is the general rule, not the ultimate rule. The history of AfDs is the history of interpretations and exception and disputes. By now, about a quarter million of them. This is not a rational way to go forward. Fortunately, the people working on AfDs have had a pretty clear idea of how to do better. (Its a little like NSCHOOLS--the RfC said a number of confusing things, and has essentially been ignored at AfD. 99% of the decisions have gone on just as before. Dr.S, what is your basis here--an objection in principle to having different rules, or a dislike for the results? In either case, you're mistaken. A diversity of practices in an intrinsic and desirable characteristic of WP, and the results are determined as they ought to be by the consensus of individuals. I point out that even so, academics are drastically under-represented, and what we need to do is to expand our coverage. You talk as if policy constrained us. It does not. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that RfC was on NSPORT, and what you are saying it did would change the text of WP:N itself, which makes no distinction between SNGs and the GNG. Some of the SNGs make themselves subordinate to the GNG, but PROF does not and the explicit text of N makes it clear that it doesn't have to (see point 1 of the notability test in the summary). There is no backdoor way to change the totality of our most significant sub-policy guideline, and people need to remember that the GNG is only one part of N.
Re: this case: she holds the academic rank of a distinguished professor at a research university. If she did have to meet WP:GNG, which she doesn't, she inevitably would: you don't get those ranks without there being immense scholarship written about or citing your work. There will be exceptionally credible book reviews about her and peer reviewed papers debating with her thoughts and analyzing them, while discussing her directly. This nomination is based off not knowing how research universities in North America operate. She is a clear pass of PROF, and if I had access to more databases than I currently do I could present a very compelling case for GNG. Part of the reason we have PROF is that the average Wikipedia user doesn't have access to the material needed to assess notability based on coverage so it is a objective test to see what people we know are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing supports this and it meets all of the applicable guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 18:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ Sourcing supports nothing beyond the fact that the person exists and has had some books published. This is par for the course for all professors, especially in English-language literature. We have nothing that amounts to even passing coverage of her or her work from any source that is not in some way vested in building up her reputation. While the amount she influences her university webpage is hard to say (it is often a very lot), it is still driven by a desire to build a positive reputation and not the type of 3rd-party source all articles, especially BLP articles, need to be based on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question At first glance I don't see that she meets the notability criteria for professors or the general notability guideline. However, she did win the Children's Literature Association Book Award in 2002. I think that should help with notability, but I don't know if it's enough. I added the award and source to her article, but I hope someone will check and make sure I did it correctly--and correct it if I didn't.Sandals1 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep It looks like she's notable as an author.Sandals1 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Contrary to what several uninformed participants above state, "distinguished professor" is a specific job title that clearly and explicitly passes WP:PROF#C5. At my university, it is reserved for faculty with a very high level of accomplishment; for instance, for scientists, it is roughly at the level of being in the National Academy of Sciences (and well past the level needed to pass #C1 or #C3 via lesser society fellowships). It's more difficult to assess that level in the humanities but I think we can safely assume that Trites' campus did so. And although the article could use significant improvement, I expect that if that effort were made then it would uncover many reviews of her books, enough to also pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Along with some other improvements, I have added ten reliably published and in-depth book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- PS It looks like Illinois State names at most one or (rarely) two distinguished professors per year [45]. Given a faculty size of 1200 and a rough estimate of a career span of 20 years/faculty member, that would mean only one in sixty of their professors could hope to ever achieve this title. Not exactly "like candy". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although GS citations are not outstanding (albeit in a very low cited field), library holdings of her books give a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements. Meets PROF (likely) and AUTHOR (definitely). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adjoint filter

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

Unsourced since fucking forever, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette before participating in any more deletion discussions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fucking~~ merge to ~~fucking~~ Hermitian adjoint. Since Xor'easter found some ~~fucking~~ sources, this seems at least mildly ~~fucking~~ notable, but not overly so on its own; it seems like just a special ~~fucking~~ case of the ~~fucking~~ adjoint operator on $\ell ^{2}$ . --Deacon ~~Fucking~~ Vorbis (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now sourced. Thanks XOR'easter. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced and meetings guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 18:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS in the article and in a GScholar search show this concept exists in the signal processing and control theory literature. There is enough sourcing for a reasonable stub. Merging to Hermitian adjoint would also be fine. But deletion of verifiable content should be avoided per WP:ATD. --Mark viking (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Herbert

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

Mostly non-notable ~~with no integration into the wiki as-is~~. Shaded0 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per WP:NPROF. Lets see: Doctor with multiple Postgraduate qualifications. Honorary senior lecturer at 3 important medical schools. chair of a relevant panel of the Royal College of Pathologists for 5 years. Editor of a relevant journal, current co-editor of another relevant journal. Author of 138 Research items with multiple citations. In short, meets cirteria. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aguyintobooks. An since when was a (bogus) claim of "no integration into the wiki as-is" a criterion for deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair bit of coverage here in this book. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's highly published. I've added some of her publications to the article and they are top Medical journals. Often, she is the lead author. In Google Scholar she looks highly cited. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Herbert meets WP:GNG and WP:PROF, with her editing credentials alone. Add in her well-cited publications and there is no question of her notability. I'm puzzled by the nom's criterion "integration into the wiki". Is that an opaque reference to the article's former orphan status? Seems an odd reason to nominate for deletion. At any rate, it does now have one incoming link, and more would be welcome. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF, numerous works cited and now in the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deorphaned the article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think it meets notability as per the above. Sorry for the improper submission on this for XFD, thanks for all the comments/review. Shaded0 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aguy, Ritchie333, Megalibrarygirl, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being highly published contributes nothing to notability under WP:Prof. GS h-index of 19 is only borderline for the highly cited field field of bio-med. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aguy, Megalibrarygirl, Ritchie333. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Xxan's reminder that publication has no bearing on notability is apt. That said, I think h-index 19 probably squeaks-by in this high-citation field. Agricola44 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Hmlarson (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hui Tseng

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

Non-notable person. Article also has a promotional tone. DrStrauss talk 22:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article should be deleted per norminator. Zazzysa (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the number of sources establishes notability. If you don't like the tone, fix it. Rama (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG with international reliable sources discussing her and her work. She is one the top ten in her field and the only one working outside of China. Like Rama suggested, I took the time to copyedit the article for tone so that it would come across as less promotional. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Govardhan Vigraham

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

Other than a few trivial mentions, not nearly enough in-depth coverage was found to show that they pass WP:GNG. Appears to be accomplished, but I can't verify any of the claims made in the article from independent sources. The current single source is a dead link, and the only other reference is the website, which is unreliable. An editor continually tries to add info sourced from Facebook, which is also another unreliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found an archived copy of the website, but I have no opinion on the source whatsoever. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External sources to validate what appears in the wiki page. It would be prudent not to delete the page Govardhan Vigraham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmfare_Award_for_Best_Special_Effects http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1229222/ http://www.animation-boss.com/vfx_270712.html http://www.animationxpress.com/index.php/latest-news/the-journey-of-haider-vfx-shot-break-downs-and-more-with-digikore-studios http://www.animationxpress.com/index.php/vfx/digikore-studios-making-ripples-in-the-vfx-industry http://www.animationxpress.com/index.php/latest-news/the-vfx-break-down-of-vishal-bhardwajs-masterpiece-haider http://www.animationxpress.com/index.php/vfx/prime-focus-provides-593-vfx-shots-for-bharadwaj-pictures-pvt-ltd-and-fox-star-studios-matru-ki-bijlee-ka-mandola http://www.animationxpress.com/index.php/animation/big-aims-brings-pixars-jay-shuster-to-india-for-cool-guru-multi-city-seminar-series http://www.efxmagic.com/press-coverages/press/man_ambu.pdf

Keep While the above "throw as many references as possible at the AfD and see what sticks" approach is rarely helpful, the citations to Animation Express appear to be significant, independent coverage of this effects artist in WP:RS. @Milograham: should integrated them into the article itself or at least add them to the article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was thinking along those lines, Eggishorn, but I'm not sure that sight is either reliable or independent. It appears to be a site set up to promote the animation industry in India, and I'm not sure how they get content. Reading the articles, they are almost all written as press releases, highly complimentary of the subject. What are your thoughts? I respect your opinion, and if you think it's a reliable, independent site (I'm leaning not), I'll withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:, thank you for the reply. From the whois domain lookup and the About Us pages, they appear to have corporate independence i.e., not being owned by another organization. I have noticed that editorial independence, on the other hand, is trickier to assess when dealing with Indian media. As always when judging reliability, context matters. I have reviewed about 15 of the stories on that site and I have yet to find one that is clearly plagiarized or copied from another source, e.g., a press release site. It is also clear that the site considers it part of their editorial mission to both inform the effects communities in Indian cinema and to promote them. Given that, I would say that the site is likely reliable for what might be called "plain facts" - e.g., this person is working on this film or this studio is contributing to that project. If they publish multiple times on a person (as they have here), then, whatever level of promotion this gives that person, there has been an editorial judgment that their readers want to hear about them multiple times. Taken together, that is notable. My opinion about whether they are "deserving" of such coverage is irrelevant. They have been the subject of that coverage and that's the standard that GNG asks of us. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Eggishorn. But I'm still not sure. Whenever a purported "independent" source uses phrases like, "Digikore is a new-age creative visual effects studio with a unique delivery model which is guided by dedication to client satisfaction, organized by vertical industry as well as service line" (that's the opening sentence). And "Bhardwaj has also experimented with the treatment given to his movies and one man who has immensely helped him in adding some ‘visual spice’ to his films Govardhan Vigraham aka ‘Govi’ as he’s lovingly called by all filmmakers." "Lovingly"?? are you serious? Add to the fact that the person behind this website is Anil Wanvari (who you get when using that wonderful resource you have above, "whois"), who if you look at his twitter and linked in profile, is also behind this site, which has some connection with the awards that all these Indian film folk tout as being an incredible accomplishment. I am also not saying whether or not they are deserving of coverage, just how independent is that coverage. Indian coverage regarding entertainment is highly suspect to begin with, and this all seems so closely interconnected I'm not sure it can be called independent. It's definitely not objective. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of movie visual effects designers. We need to show secondary coverage of the person, not just coverage of their work. Nothing of the former is shown at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Visual effects designers are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy's

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

Promotional article for small chain--no substantial notability. Routine restaurant reviews don't count toward notability DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:AUD. The National Post non-local ref is because the restaurant defied the province's Bill 101 language law on signage -- businesses do from time to time but that doesn't confer lasting notability, if they do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. The acceptability of such topics was established with the celebrated case of Mzoli's. There is therefore no consensus for deletion of such. Andrew D. (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on Wikipedia that single-city local restaurants are automatically notable. What Mzoli's has, but Mandy's doesn't, is enough reliable source coverage about it in media to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus that Mzoli's should exist and it has done for many years, even after its high-profile exposure as a significant test case. Its sources are all local to the region and, as it is a single branch, rather than a small chain, its objective characteristics are somewhat lesser. So, we have clear precedent and the objective factors are the same or better in this case. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its sources are all local to the region? I'm sure Johannesburg and Cape Town would be fascinated to learn that they're not half a country away from each other. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local restaurants are not automatically accepted for Wikipedia articles, and there's no indication here that this one is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to qualify as a special case. Half the sourcing here is to its own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-assisting source, and restaurants have to clear WP:CORPDEPTH, which requires quite a bit more reliable source coverage in both volume and geographic range than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a small local chain, with no indications of notability or significance. Not a community landmark or a 100 yo business. The article is promotional in tone, include information of the restaurant's products and even as "News" section. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly the criteria for establishing notability have not been met. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. (off topic) Does anyone else know why my last 4 AfDs aren't showing in my log? Thanks,L3X1 (distænt write) 01:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bridge (instrument). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge pin

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

Dicdef, not notable, untouched since 2009. Deprodded without comment. Merge was suggested, but term has more than one meaning. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bridge (instrument) as preferred alternative to deletion. Other use(s) can be handled by Bridge (disambiguation) or create Bridge pin (disambiguation) if you like. ~Kvng (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bridge (instrument). Then create a dab page here with that, Bridge pin (fasteners) (which should be moved to "fastener") and Pin (bridge). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Lazard

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

I am not finding evidence that this subject meets the GNG. So far as I understand, neither winning an NEA fellowship nor serving as president of a the Poetry Society of America bestows inherent notability (we don't even have a category for the latter), and I am not finding sources focused on the subject. bd2412 T 21:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is an encyclopedia without poets? As A.J. Jacobs explains in The Know-It-All, to get into Encyclopedia Britannica: "Write some poems. Surrealist and Russian formalist poets are especially welcome, but almost anyone who has ever written a quatrain or rhymed more than a dozen words seems to get into the club."^[1] Jokes aside, Lazard has received more than enough coverage in books and scholarly publications to support an article. She may not be famous, but she is highly regarded in her field and meets WP:AUTHOR as someone who has received significant critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jacobs, A. J. (1 October 2004). The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World. Simon and Schuster. p. 88. Retrieved 29 August 2017. write some poems.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable poet who meets author guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus after two relists.(non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Phillips (ice hockey)

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

Not seeing the sources needed to fulfill WP:GNG as all are of the WP:ROUTINE variety (maybe a few more routine mentions because of his status as captain). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league. Was prodded and deleted before and nothing has really changed to indicate notability. Yosemiter (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: CSD A7. Never passes WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. AaronWikia (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AaronWikia: pretty sure A7 cannot be applied as it has been prodded and de-prodded as well as playing professionally can be a "claim of significance". Yosemiter (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct, declined as such. A7 is not about notability and the article contains enough claims of significance. Regards So Why 10:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speedy delete for a long time captain of a professional team and captain of a Division I nation is foolish and disingenuous.18abruce (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Does indeed fail NHOCKEY, however for GNG I found the following [46], [47], [48], [49]. They are not great, but there are many more features on him in the yorkshire post and the sheffield star, both reliable sources I would say. If you have checked these already @Yosemiter: please respond with what I have missed, I trust your judgement.18abruce (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @18abruce: I did see them, but they probably are worth discussing (and perhaps I should have been more clear in my definition the nomination as "maybe a few more mentions"). They are certainly significant and in depth, but the issue (depending on interpretation of GNG) is whether they are independent. Both The Star and the Yorkshire Post are the local papers for his team, the Sheffield Steelers (with The Star being the Sheffield paper and Sheffield is a borough of Yorkshire). Some would consider this routine coverage as the local press are expected to cover the local team and its important players, of which Phillips is the leader of the team as captain and goal scorer. (This interpretation is why we usually discount most college, high school, and minor league athletes.) As it is a bit open to interpretation, if others feel these articles indicate GNG, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But then the article would need to be greatly improved from what it is now. Yosemiter (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yosemiter: Very fair point, interested what others think, I had not considered that the sources would not be viewed as independent. Hopefully see what others have to say, his was a name I knew from following hockey so I kind of assumed there would be more. Refreshing to have an AFD discussion based on evidence isn't it?18abruce (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard the argument that local newspapers are not independent, by virtue of being based in the same city or region as the subject before. I'd be more inclined to dismiss them as routine local coverage than as not independent. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry:, you might be correct. WP:ROUTINE never really specifies what part of GNG it violates. But I always interpreted it as "a source that would not be expected to cover the subject due to proximity and its local media market/target audience" (quotes are mine) in the same vein as WP:MILL. Yosemiter (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I retracted my vote, not prepared to vote delete either, thought it was a weak case in the beginning and have further doubts now.18abruce (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG, with plenty of local coverage plus at least one BBC and one Mirror article. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mind linking the BBC and Mirror articles. I only found routine mentions from those sources, nothing in depth but maybe I missed something. Yosemiter (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Mirror article is rather brief, but the sheer number of local articles does it for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not registering a formal vote to avoid any notion of canvassing, because Yosemiter asked me to take a look in on these sources, stating that he'd withdraw the AfD if I agreed they were good sources. Nonetheless, I'd really like people to take a look at them again, because they're almost embarrassingly bad sources. The GNG requires that a subject receive "significant coverage" (emphasis in the original), and WP:ROUTINE holds that they not involve routine sports coverage. So let's look at the ones mentioned in this AfD.
[50] is pretty pathetically short; the "article" is all of 86 words long, including the photo caption, half of which is a quote from the subject.
The Mirror cite [51]: "Skipper Jonathan Phillips has signed a new deal at Sheffield three days after leading them to the Elite League play-off crown. The GB star is the first of the Steelers' trophy winning squad to commit to next season. Phillips said: "It was the easiest decision of my life coming back."" is the entire damn thing.
[52] is a likewise fleeting piece that mentions the subject as having been named with two other players to be captains.
Even if the Yorkshire Post cite wasn't another embarrassingly short one at 58 words, it identifies the subject as an online columnist for the paper, completely debarring the Post as an independent source supporting the subject's notability.
[53] consists solely of quotes from the subject, which cannot be used to bolster the notability of the subject.
[54] is the closest of the six to a reliable source, at least if it wasn't all again quotes from the subject and was a very short piece, but at least it's nominally about the subject.
Nothing I've seen so far, however, is what I'd call a GNG-qualifying cite, and that's a problem. If there were thirty more sources of such poor quality, I wouldn't be moved; 0+0+0+0+0 still equals zero. Ravenswing 06:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, I take routine sports coverage to be team sheets, scores, basic match reports and such like. I think that the available local and regional coverage goes further than that. Take this, for example, or this. I agree about the BBC and Mirror sources being pretty poor - I shouldn't have mentioned them in retrospect, but wanted to highlight that there was some national coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheffield Telegraph is a local weekly, although that cite is closer to valid than anything anyone's yet served up. I already stated why the Yorkshire Post is not an independent source, since the subject is a columnist for it. Ravenswing 01:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to stray into WP:OTHERSTUFF territory, it occurs to me that if Phillips is judged not to be notable, then that is probably true of all other players in the Elite Ice Hockey League, who have not played in more prestigious leagues. These players will fail WP:NHOCKEY and as the GB captain, he is likely closer to passing the GNG threshold than others. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cordless Larry: On the whole, most EIHL players definitely do not get enough coverage, even local, to pass GNG. Hence, the reason it is only listed in WP:NHOCKEY for player notability if they have won a major award. Most EIHL players I have nominated were deleted due to the failure to meet GNG (most had much, much less than Phillips). However, this particular subject is borderline to GNG and I think we could view this AfD as a test subject for editor's opinions on what constitutes the GNG in terms of significant depth sources when only found in local news. Yosemiter (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Having discussed Routine, resisting so more editors can come.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 00:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10155403037370528

[2] Jacobs, A. J. (1 October 2004). The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World. Simon and Schuster. p. 88. Retrieved 29 August 2017. write some poems.

[1]

[1]