Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 March	2 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends voice actors

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

Though League of Legends is notable, there is no need for a list of voice actors. Aside from the notability issue, this article's premise violates Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE, which is why the several previous attempts at listing out the characters and their in-game roles have been deleted, as well. IMDb covers this game's cast-- there is no need to have that information transcribed as a directory. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 18:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ IMDb is an unreliable source so it should not be relied on to provide accurate information about this subject. League of Legends is so notable that participation through voice acting also would seem to be notable. Also, it is better to have this information in it's own article rather than merging and overenlarging other articles. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly not recommend having this kind of information merged into the League of Legends article-- I'm recommending this page is deleted, cut and dry. I'm not arguing that the game is not notable, as it's very much so, but having not only game guides, but cast lists for individual video games, is unprecedented. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read WP:NOTINHERITED? Just because league is notable, it does not make all the voice actors notable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid at deletion discussions rules out almost everything from an inclusion point of view and is a particularly biased essay while Not Inherited has been given a vast scope that was never intended from its original couple of sentances.Voice acting in a very notable production obviously gives more notability such as rs coverage than working in little known non notable productions.Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were discussing the merits of the essay, what about the fact that this page is a virtual recreation of a page that was previously deleted for not being notable and for being a game guide? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

League of Legends is so notable that participation through voice acting also would seem to be notable. This is a classic suggestion that because League is notable, all the voice actors are too. This goes against the WP:GNG and WP:NRVE - two of the most fundamental principles of article creation. For example, just because Barack Obama is notable, it does not mean his right arm is notable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another person agreeing that this stance seems to be centered entirely around INHERITED and not wanting to merge it into a parent article, neither being valid arguments in favor of proving stand-alone notability. As my stance below mentions too, your comments on the importance of voice acting in video games flies directly against WikiProject Video Game's current consensus, which, per WP:GAMECRUFT, generally discourages these sorts of lists existing at all, let alone as a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking keep vote as there is a consensus against this type of article Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The entire article is one giant violation of WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:NOT. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this could be salvaged as a character list, there's no indication that the mass of characters in LoL are notable or could be documented in that way (contrast to Characters of Overwatch where we can support most characters with secondary sources.) --MASEM (t) 13:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too detailed, trivial information. It's not about the characters, but about their voice actors. Unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, so there's no justification for lists of cast members. Also, it really needs to be emphasised (again) that notability is not inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airwheel E6

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

Not notable. No attempt to establish notability. Sourced entirely by PR releases. Cabayi (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't have a substantial amount of notable sources from the United States (the purported country of origin of the product). If they are there, they should be added by the creator for a second look. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Rides

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

Article about an organization, which features almost no substance beyond "it exists" and is sourced to just two pieces of relatively WP:ROUTINE local coverage with no evidence of the wider coverage that it takes to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. Something like this would have to operate more than just locally, or at least be getting coverage beyond its own city, to qualify for a Wikipedia article about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article fails to establish notability, while being promotional at the same time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power management keys

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

Fails WP:GNG: Power management keys are rare on modern keyboards and where they do exist, they are almost always multi-function keyboards with keys for other features that are usually programmable. Unless we have an article about multi-function programmable keys (similar to Multimedia keyboard), I see no need to have an article about power management keys which are just that - especially with all of this apparent "original research" in the way and Google searches returning no useful results (purely advertising or promotional links). We have our own solutions to manage the power of Wikipedia, after all, and don't need keys to do it. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Some Gadget Geek: Your deletion rationale isn't clear. Can you please re-state it in a policy-based way? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reeks of original research. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep April Fools' Day is over. (Is this a non-April Fools' AfD?) YudsWiki2003 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @YudsWiki2003: No this AFD is not for April Fools. However, this was nominated for deletion for April Fools Day (at WP:Articles for deletion/Power management keys/AFD) but this is a serious nomination. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:32, 9 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator (See comment below). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct airlines of Faroe Islands

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

The article is a single-entry list. Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added two more airlines that were missing to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, MilborneOne. Following your additions I don't see any reason for deletion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 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 (✉) 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Nickelodeon

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

The "History" section on the main Nickelodeon article does not summarize any of the network's history beyond the early '80s, and the contents of the separate history page are much shorter than the "History" sections on comparable articles like CBS. Doesn't warrant its own page. OpenYourEyes2 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main article is already overly long as it is, so merging this back in would make that article overly weighty. With 37 refs this is a WP:SOFIXIT case of improving the later parts from 'fanboy' tone, not outright deletion. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable network, this is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There was a recent discussion by editors of Nickelodeon about this issue, see: Talk:Nickelodeon#Merge history article into this one. Merge discussion should probably start there. Delete without merge is obviously not appropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course! This company is a major television network (once that I watched as a child). With hundreds of shows released, an article covering the company's history is useful. I don't think the fact that the Nickelodeon article currently covers the history from the 1980s onward is a good reason to delete it. On the contary, it should be expanded instead. One citation that might be used to expand the article is The History of Nickolodeon timeline, found at the following url: https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/the-history-of-nickelodeon. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The history section of the main article certainly does need work to better summarize this content, but folding it back into the already-pretty-long main article doesn't seem like the right move. There looks to be enough by way of sources and content to justify a stand-alone history article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above 'keep' comments, notable network, issue of main Nickelodeon article being fairly long. Merging them is an option but would make Nickelodeon nearly 100k bytes and add 5 more sections to the 10 (and 23 sub-sections of varying levels) already existing. If it isn't long enough already, that would be pushing it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:20, 6 April 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_Google_April_Fools'_Day_jokes#Google_Gnome. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Gnome

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

Proposing redirect to List of Google April Fools' Day jokes, not enough information to warrant its own article ActuallyTheFakeJTP ^{(talk • contribs)}_{(April Fools!)} 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the redirect proposal. Trivialist (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am also in favor of the redirect proposal. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Google April Fools' Day jokes per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Google April Fools' Day jokes § Google Gnome, where this is covered at. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 8 April 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 Robert Sapolsky. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

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

The subject is a not-yet-published book with insufficient evidence of notability. The article was created by a single-purpose account. It is too soon to consider creating an article in Wikipedia on this subject. Biogeographist (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Sapolsky (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. After the book is published, if there are enough reviews or articles about the book, the redirect can be easily undone.
Cunard (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that a redirect is an acceptable alternative. If it is redirected instead of deleted, the edit summary should link to this deletion discussion and note that the reason for the redirect is its current lack of notability. Biogeographist (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect for the time being as per the above, simply WP:TOOSOON considering the book has yet to be released. In the future (assuming it is indeed released etc and does become notable), then by all means, it should be made into its own article. It is simply too soon in my opinion at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Buxton

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

Non-notable unelected candidate, placed third according to constituency article. No indication of meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. PROD removed by IP editor without explanation. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are never notable for such alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as defeated political candidate. No other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:POLOUTCOMES. We almost always delete unsuccessful candidates, especially when they garner less than 12 % in a riding election. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and this makes no credible claim that he has preexisting notability for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments (and nom). Not notable coming in third in an election with no other claim to notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A3 and A7 MapReader (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Talking Smack

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)

Fails WP:GNG. WWE Network post-show for SmackDown-branded pay-per-view events. Not notable in its own right. Copy-pasted from Pro Wrestling Wikia. Nickag989^talk 09:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the past we redirect non-notable WWE Network shows to List of current WWE programming but this doesn't even appear there.LM2000 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Talking Smack is a weekly show and has had some notable moments but this article provides no references, little useful information and appears to be a copyvio. Not prejudice against future recreation. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WWE SmackDown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.145.176 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason is? Nickag989^talk 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to WWE SmackDown because its the show is about SmackDown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.73.122 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator Not enough arguments here. Definetely (for sure) the same IP user, who ~~yesterday~~ not long ago said to redirect to WWE SmackDown, for no reason, so this doesn't count. Nickag989^talk 19:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes i am the same user and what is for no reason, so this doesn't count???? i just gave one because its the show is about SmackDown so redirect it to smackdown or wwe network or List of current WWE programming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.131.239 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your duplicate !vote.LM2000 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7). -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jozeff

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Article attempts to inherit notability from events the person was involved with, and sources located during WP:BEFORE search offer no evidence of individual notability. Improvement tags repeatedly removed by author without making any effort to address this issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7). Fails WP:MUSICBIO among others.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Echoing both the nom and Kupdung's comments (I'd say speedy but it keeps getting declined anyway...) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chrissymad: I'm happy to explain myself here - the Speedy was first declined by me, when the article was at this stage, because I was hoping the article creator would be able to flesh out the claims they had made. Unfortunately, all they did was remove improvement templates and make the article worse, which is why I support deletion of this article despite declining a Speedy Delete under WP:A7. I hope this makes sense! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus about whether to redirect; this can be resolved by creating a redirect and then challenging it via RfD. For those concerned about losing content, here is the article in its unsourced entirety: "Health and Physical Education Complex is a 5,100 seat multi-purpose arena in Fort Valley, Georgia in the United States. It was built in 2004. It is the home of the Fort Valley State University Wildcats basketball teams." Sandstein 08:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Physical Education Complex

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

generically titled article about a apparently non notable arena for a minor college basketball team. Name is too generic to redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; too generic to redirect. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fort Valley State University#Athletics and redirect. Clearly not notable for a stand-alone article, but searching on Fort Valley Health and Physical Education Complex turns up plenty of hits (mostly passing mention of events being held there). It seems to be an important part of the university and should be mentioned there. MB 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Why the heck would we redirect the entirely generic term "Health and Physical Education Complex" to a specific article on a school? If it were "Foo Health and Physical Education Complex", I would have boldly redirected it and been done with it. Merging would be inserting the jist of the one sentence that this article consists of into the school's article. But a redirect, for lack of a more elegant term, is just plain dumb. Frankly, MB, your position makes no sense whatsoever and will only serve to prolong this. John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that seems to be its WP:Commonname. I found things like " Handicapped parking is available near the Health and Physical Education Complex and Wildcat Commons residence halls" and "children and seniors flocked to FVSU’s Health and Physical Education Complex" or a shortened form "HPE Complex (New Gym)". Some cases append the university as "The Health and Physical Education Complex-Fort Valley State University". It may sound generic to you but that is how it is named. MB 04:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Health and Physical Education Arena, another generic sounding name that has existed as a stub for over 10 years, which should probably be handled the same way with Texas Southern University. Do you want to handle that too? MB 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too should be handled the same way. Here's an example from a notable arena to illustrate my point. Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall, the basketball arena at Indiana University, was formerly named simply Assembly Hall (the school essentially sold naming rights, a sad sellout situation IMO, but that's a different discussion). Its article here was titled Assembly Hall (Bloomington) prior to the rename, disambiguating the generic name in the title. Anyone in Indiana would know that Assembly Hall was the gym at IU (and most still call it that), but due the generic name, its title was disambiguated. Half the name references you gave added a disambiguation, and I think it's safe to assume the others could have been disambiguated from the context of the source. If a person were to come to Wikipedia to search for info on this arena, first, given the world - wide footprint of Wikipedia, it's doubtful their search term would be this title. Second, they would probably preface the current title with the school name. So what is going to come up if they do that? The school's article! So are you proposing we move this page which we are in agreement is a non notable subject, to a different title then redirect it to an article that will come up before this one in a search? You already found one article with a very similar name, and I'd place money on the fact that there are many more buildings on college campuses world wide with similar names. A redirect in no way serves the reader. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is averaging two views per day, and it is linked from two other articles. So people are finding it somehow. I am proposing that it be merged in the FVSU article (which surprisingly doesn't link to it), and a redirect be left - to avoid redlinks and to aid in searching if someone did look under this name. There is no need to disambiguate because there are no other titles at that name. I've searched on google, and found three others (at York College - Queens NYC, Southern University Shreveport, and Cal State San Bernadino) and none of these are mentioned in the articles on those places. I think the one at FVSU may be a little more significant than the others because it has a 5000 seat arena; it's more than a gym complex. I also found Health and Sports Center as a third similar case that should be merged to its host university as well (with a redirect for the same reasons). MB 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Texas Southern arena, that is a Division I basketball arena, and will be hosting Houston University games next year in addition to TSU games, so I'd argue it's notable and should not be merged. Conensus seems to be Division I basketball arenas are notable, given the significant coverage they receive. This one may be different since it's not Division I. Smartyllama (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Powers

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the coverage of him as a player or as a coach rises to the level of notability and passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to find notability guidelines for radio broadcasters/sports broadcasters, but found no guidance. There are 7 listed "Boston College Eagles football broadcasters", although each one has more on his resume than Andy Powers. I did find that he has done color commentary for BC hockey for several years now, so I think it might be appropriate to rewrite the article to focus on that rather than delete. Bill McKenna (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed, there are no notability guidelines covering sports broadcasters, which would mean that they'd stand and fall on the GNG. The subject doesn't meet it, and our standard practice is certainly not to keep an article just because there aren't any SNGs bearing on the subject. Ravenswing 22:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as far as I can find. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag League Greatest

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

Article about a one-time tournament in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs or links to the promotion itself and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrestle-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.86.216 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 03:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate notability from what I can find. MPJ-DK 03:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No rationale given regarding why redirecting is a viable solution. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F-1 Tag Team Championship

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

Article about a wrestling championship in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be social media, non-independent, or blog and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this title. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally agree with nominator. MPJ-DK 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrestle-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.86.216 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nahas Mala

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

WP:BLP of the leader of a student organization, which just asserts that he exists and contains neither the substance nor the sourcing needed to make his existence any concern of ours -- apart from one article about him on a website that looks suspiciously more like a WordPress blog than a real media outlet, every other reference here is either the organization's own primary source content about itself, or a glancing namecheck of his existence as a soundbite-giver in an article that is substantively about something else. This is not the type of coverage required to get someone over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - subject is mentioned at Students Islamic Organisation of India, but beyond that I do not see that he has been the subject of coverage that would be necessary to ensure NPOV, NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Additionally, this is touching upon WP:NOTRESUME. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we were to accept the Deccan Digest as a reliable source, there's no substantial coverage there. And as pointed out by the nominator, none of the other references are really about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Haswell

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

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, which is written like a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced entirely to primary sources with zero evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media. While there are valid notability claims here that would get him into Wikipedia if the article could be sourced properly, there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vigilante police force of an open community encyclopedia has arrived... Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all site where anything or anyone is entitled to an article just because they exist. Certain specific standards of reliable sourceability have to be attained before an article is allowed to exist, and enforcing those standards is not "vigilantism" — it's how the project works, and as a site administrator it's part of my job description. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RESUME tone and WP:N not met, along with Bearcat's RS concerns. I'm beginning to think that the article creator may either be an agent for their subjects or is a WITI or Tribune Media employee, which would definitely trigger conflict of interest concerns. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Jkmarold isn't the creator in this instance — he's just raising stink because I nominated it as a response to his WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that Katrina Cravy has to be kept because this exists. This article was created by a user named "Tanyaalidina", not by Jkmarold. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, fair enough. I'm surprised this article has existed for so long to begin with. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. In the word "vigilante" there is also the word "vigilant" and thanks to the vigilance of people like Jkmarold here pages that should not be on wikipedia get nominated for deletion and as he said it is even less notable than the pages he creates. I suggest he spends a bit of time doing new pages patrolling he seems to have a knack for digging out non notable articles. Domdeparis (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish we could have slightly lower inclusion standards, partly because I am convinced that Taniela B. Wakolo is actually notable. However I am going to hold off on creating an article on Wakolo until I can find some clearly non-LDS Church linked sources on him. This may take a while, since I also am not fluent in Fijian, and some may be in Fijian. However I have seen way too many overly promotional articles on people who are clearly not notable and realized we cannot adequately maintain even the articles we have with the current project participation level. Unlike some, I realize Wikipedia is not meant to be LinkedIn, and so we need standards of actual notability and not just exclusion of things that are hoaxes or unverifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we almost always delete local newscasters and producers, even when they win a local Emmy. Otherwise, we'd have hundreds of such articles, such as Richard Bagala and Fred Cwerner. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are lists, passing references, an IMDB page and dead links. The only substantive reference other than the non-RS IMDB, is a one-paragraph announcement in a local trade newsletter. That in not the stuff of notability. Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 4 April 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 Wichian Buri District. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Chicken of Wichian Buri

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

Article has extremely confusing sections in comparison to it's title and passes WP:NOTCOOKBOOK TopCipher (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article about the same subject was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken, also due to intelligibility rather than notability concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Wichian Buri District Redirect The article was very confusing - I've made some edits to get it focused on the title of the article, which if kept should probably be Kai Yang Wichian Buri OR Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken. Another option is to redirect it to Kai yang, since it's a regional version of Kai Yang. The find sources links should be to:

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

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

~~I vote for a redirect with some content added to the Kai yang article about the Wichian Buri regional version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

I like Petebutt's vote and changed to "merge".–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Wichian Buri District--Petebutt (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - TopCipher, if I agree to merge the cited content into Wichian Buri District, would that work for you? Then, we could ask to close out this item or have it withdrawn?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article, Bjj dev, merged the content into the Wichian Buri District article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Yadav

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

Fails WP:GNG: No significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News search result returned with nothing to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently presented. Neither Times of India article referenced mentions the article subject at all. bd2412 T 23:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at first glance, seems to be notable but, as mentioned, a lot of the sources given don't actually mention Yadav at all Spiderone 07:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above comments and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank Memes

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

While this is a concept that would certainly qualify for an article if proper reliable sources could be added to support it, the only sources present here are Know Your Meme, Urban Dictionary and a YouTube video. And on a Google search, I can't find much improved evidence of better-quality sourcing -- the concept gets namechecked a fair bit in the news, but there's little evidence of it being the subject of media coverage. About all I can find, rather, is more unreliable sources such as Facebook and Reddit posts and more YouTube videos. As well, this is exactly the kind of topic where we have to be especially vigilant about insisting on top-quality sourcing, because it's a potential minefield of WP:POV editwarring and troll disruption. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but WP:TNT pertains here if YouTube videos and Urban Dictionary are all we can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I also did a search on this phrase when the question was raised at the Teahouse about whether an article could be written about it. To remain on WP, this article would need better sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 2 April 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 Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World 8-4

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

Guides to Super Mario Bros levels fail WP:NOTGUIDE - more suited for Wikia Nthep (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced game guide fos an individual level of a video game. I assume it's intelligible to people who are familiar with the game, but to me it's mostly gibberish. --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming-wiki. While certain content on gaming is important, this is very specific and goes into non-notable detail. Go to mariowiki.com, specifically this page if you feel this information should be available to SMB players. --Tuxipedia (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _{Very Busy} 06:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unsourced, fails WP:NOTGUIDE and the writing is incomprehensible. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super Mario Bros. because this article is, in fact, a part of that game. also, I think this is the only way for that article without deleting. maybe, we can save that article. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 09:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a way of salvaging content from an article - which part of this article is actually encyclopedic content that can be saved? --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First part, end of Layouts part ("and all Goombas in a game become Buzzy Beetles, and game repeats"). i'll add some details if it gets merged. well, for example, world selection and stuff. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsourced, sloppy stub, that couldn't even be bothered to spell the name of its respective game correctly. Super Mario Bros. is a WP:GA. It's pretty obvious that no merging should be done here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations, offers no evidence of notability, most unlikely that there is any. Maproom (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect for the honest merge !vote, and the willingness to try to salvage something here, but this is ripe for a SNOW. There's nothing here that wouldn't have to be fundamentally rewritten to be remotely encyclopedic, even if it wasn't basically pure distilled original research, and didn't fail NOTGUIDE. The user has been pretty prolific at posting question at WP:TH, and I hate it when this kind of thing happens, but I seriously doubt they have the language proficiency to really contribute yet. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but only to note that we do have one SMB level, World 1-1, but that's a far different case given how famous that level is.) --MASEM (t) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SNOW delete per above rationales. No valid content salvageable in this garbage heap for a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unclear, unsourced and WP:NOTGUIDE - Remarkably similar to Underwater (course) supposedly by a different editor - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not a different editor. Both CU blocked. Nthep (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MILL (there are many levels, and there's no need to create a separate article for each one). Maybe there's a Wikia wiki the author could move it to? ~barakokula31 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTGUIDE applies. Absolutely nothing notable about this - WP:MILL. Can we have an early WP:SNOW close. Seems no point in continuing to run this AfD. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a unsourced article that fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:MILL. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable independent sources. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater (course) as that article was deleted for basically the same reasons as described here. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:56, 5 April 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 - minor ground collision . Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision

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

Minor aviation incident with no long lasting effects. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a very minor collision. It is in the same category as two cars having a fender-bender in a shopping mall parking lot. Just not notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noteworthy just a bad day at the office doesnt pass any of the aircraft accident thresholds for a mention in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – same as the 2017 collision. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG, as above--Petebutt (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Neither article is very satisfying. If there was an airport design issue that contributed to the incidents that could perhaps be interesting to note somewhere, either at the individual airport article or at a general article like List of taxiway bridges (if a bridge was involved). --do ncr am 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. The equivalent of a fender-bender with airplanes (via Ahunt). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:33, 6 April 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' - a minor accident, not notable enough to sustain an article . Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision

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

Not notable aviation incident. Aircraft touching is not uncommon. The local newspaper calls[1] it a minor collision, this article calls it the same. A clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The media and the article describes this as a minor collision. It is in the same category as two cars having a fender-bender in a shopping mall parking lot. Just not notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noteworthy just a bad day at the office doesnt pass any of the aircraft accident thresholds for a mention in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − or we'll end up having an article for every time a pilot sneezed. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG, as above--Petebutt (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very common and minor incident. Wykx (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor incident which fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Lorigo

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a politician whose main claim of notability is serving in a county legislature. This is not a level of office where every person is automatically entitled to an article under WP:NPOL -- local political figures are permitted articles if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability the way state or federal legislators are. And for sourcing, all we have here is his primary source biography on the website of the county government he's a member of, with no evidence of coverage in independent sources shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county legislature members are almost never notable for such alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as local politician with no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of local politicians Wikipedia would have from every country if their election alone was enough to secure a page? There has got to be some verifiable notability attained by the individual beyond gaining votesPupsbunch (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This reads like it could be on this individual's campaign page. Pswny (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)(talk) 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the above and nom. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi KOH

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

Non-notable individual. No coverage in WP:RS; sole coverage is from blogs, twitter, facebook, etc. Fails WP:ANYBIO generally, and WP:NACADEMIC specifically. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual lacking reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not evident. The body, Koh heads, NAFSTS, doesn't seem to be notable either. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:36, 6 April 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 prior to merge. It seems to me that for the most part merging seems to be the favoured option. I will blank and redirect Student government political party and Student government party to Students' union for now. Anybody is then free to merge in the material from the Student government political party to any article(s) that they think is suitable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student government party

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Currently it is simply an editor's definition of a topic. Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article creator has redirected Student government party to Student government political party, so I'm including the usual AfD search tags for that title too, for what it's worth. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom (I would have tried an WP:A7 but no matter). Main article students' union makes no mention of them, except in the India section which mentions links to real political parties there. Created and de-prodded by a problematic editor, too, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An impressive amount of work has been done and the potential is much greater than I had thought. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a concept made up by the article creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This happens only in Hollywood films as painful satire, not real life. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 1 April 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 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep as the article is greatly expanded from when it was nominated for deletion.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You've expanded it what you've decided are examples of the concept, but the sources don't use the term "student government political party", so I think we're drifting into original research. It's still a delete for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we should rename it to the most appropriate title, and that solves the problem.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (including the Redirect) None of the sources refer to "Student government party" as a notable, separate entity. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not voting yet to see how a few more days expansion looks. (This should have been a WP:DRAFT to avoid being judged in such an early state). So far, I think it's demonstrated the phenomenon exists, but not whether it's independently notable enough for a dedicated article. A section or integrated mention of it on Student governments in the United States would be a sensible alternative approach to consider. Mortee (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching "campus political party" finds other mentions. I listed a few (not necessarily reliable) sources on the talk page in case they help anyone. Mortee (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If none of those sources explicitly reference "Student government party" or "Student government political party" then they're no good. We can't keep moving the goalposts here. You can't say "use this, it sounds like what the article might be about." Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So rename it "campus political party".--I'm on day 4 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not how Wikipedia works. You can't say "My article is wrong, let's keep changing titles until someone finds references that fit that title." My suggestion to you is to work on a draft in your sandbox and submit it through the Article for Creation process. This current article (and please don't move it again) has no place on Wikipedia because its subject matter does not meet the notability guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Insisting that the exact phrase be used is odd. Talking about "parties" in the context of "student government" e.g. here should be relevant. In any case, some do say "student government party": [2], [3], [4]. Again, I'm not saying these establish notability - none are treating the topic of these parties separate from particular examples. This might be best served by folding it in to another article and I'm witholding judgement for now. I do say though that these sources show this isn't "a concept made up by the article creator" as a previous commentor said. Mortee (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd to insist that an article should be about what it claims it's meant to be about. If it's the general concept of student government in the US, which is all it contains at the moment, then we have Student governments in the United States. If it's about student activism in general, we already have Student activism. We also have Students' union which includes sections on student bodies. So, tell me, what is this article going to add? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be about the phenomenon of political parties formed within student bodies for election to student governments, separate from student activism in general. It's possible for those to be referred to in sources without the specific substring "student government political parties". I haven't yet taken a view on whether this article should stand alone or be folded into Student governments in the United States Mortee (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia's view is that there shouldn't be two articles covering the same subject matter. It's really simple, not something that requires "taking a view" - it's a straightforward policy - see WP:A10. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with any subtopic, the question is whether there's enough to be said about this (parties in particular) that it can't be reasonably folded into the supertopic (student government). That's what I'm waiting to see as the article expands. I'll disengage from this for now and see how things stand in a few days. Mortee (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case the article doesn't change in those few days, it's worth noting that Student governments in the United States doesn't use "party" or "parties" at all, so A10 doesn't apply and a merge (to some degree) would be better than a pure delete if the article itself doesn't stand, to cover the fact of these student government political parties existing. Mortee (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree merging would be better than deleting.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or userfy - right now it's a total mess yet there appears to be a kernel worth saving. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does userfy mean?--I'm on day 4 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are evidence that such a thing exists. In addition, Hong Kong's universities have a vibrant student government political party scene as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they were involved in the umbrella revolution, and some may have been in the high schools also.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but very carefully as it's a mess but has some potential merit (per Bearian, above). The subject exists - we call them "Factions" in Australia - although I doubt this is the best possible name for it, and most of the info probably belongs in articles about the individual student unions themselves. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this is treated as a synthetic concept in any meaningful way in reliable sources, beyond discussion of individual student government parties. Or better yet move into Draft if author wants to try to find such sources. Martinp (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of this material can be used in Student governments in the United States, and some in articles about the individual student bodies mentioned, but I don't see any evidence that this is treated by sources as an independent topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design

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

Article created by apparent COI editor (see use of "we" in edit summary). PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "We are indexed in DOAJ, BASE and EBSCO. Also, we are indexed in minior bases like World Cat or I2R. We received result from preevaluation proces for Scopus base. I can send you their possitive answer. Definitly, we will apply for Scopus in September." DOAJ, BASE, and EBSCO are not selective databases in the sense of NJournals (and WorldCat and I2R even less so). If the journal gets included in Scopus, the article could be recreated but at this point, this is definitely too soon. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not happy with your proposition and of course, I do not agree. Please find in bellow e-mail from Scopus pre-evaluation. If it is necessary, I will send you pfd file with pre-evaluation results. This month we bought doi numbers and that is a reason why we are waiting for September. Also, in 2019 we will apply for Web of Sciences. If you have more information about citation our journal, I will send you results next week.In that results you can see that our journal is cite in a lot of journals indexed in the best bases like WoS or Scopus. In the end, you will decided, but I am sure that our journal will have impact factor in next few years with or withouth wikipedia page.

(Redacted)

--Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, but a form letter from Scopus that they will consider your journal does not mean anything. If your journal gets included in any selective databases, that's the moment to create this article. At the moment, there's no way of predicting the outcome of that evaluation process. --Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you. In the future, we will be included in Scopus and WoS (it does not matter when, 2017, 2018 or 2020...). In that moment, Wikipedia pages will not be necessary for use, but today is important to have Wikipedia page. With Wikipedia page, other scientific workers can find information about us. --Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not ask what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia. WP is not a place to promote your journal. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment conflict of interest established here. FYI. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemanja Kasikovic: I asked you here to not post the contents of someone else's email in public. Please do not do that again. Ina any case, two editors have now told you that doing so is a pointless exercise, as it confers no notability upon your journal. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the orginal PROD; no further notability has been established. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much for everything. I told my opinion and reasons why I think that Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design deserves Wikipedia pages. It's hard to create something out of nothing, especially if you are from a small country like Serbia. As an editor, I am trying to make great journal, and I am sure that I will do that. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design will be a part of Scopus and WoS base with or without Wikipedia page. This is my last post. The final decision is up to you. All the best.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. I see no problems with recreation after the journal gains more renown - being indexed in databases and having a decent citation index will help. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon to be able to tell . DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Award for Best Performance by a Vocal Group or Chorus

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

Does not require its own article vast majority of information is already in the Grammy Awards of 1960 & 1959 articles.. Other nominees is not sourced and not required. ツStacey (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be expanded to include details about the nominated and winning artists/works. Alternatively, if this Grammy category was merged into another, then a redirect would work. Please do not delete a page about a Grammy award category. We have (Good status, BTW) Wikipedia articles about categories only presented for one year (examples: Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording, Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental), so there is precedent for keeping even short-lived awards. There are sources on the article's talk page for expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a Grammy, which means plenty of media coverage. If there were a Discontinued Grammy Awards, then it could be merged there, but otherwise, there's no good redirect target. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Thanks for your improvements to the article. Now that the article is sourced, can I change my vote to speedy keep and close? :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For large-scale awards programs such as the Grammies or the Oscars where awards are presented in many categories, the most useful presentation is for us to have a separate article about each year's ceremony that lists the winners in all categories for that year and a separate article about each category which lists the winners across the years in that category. Each category does not need to separately clear WP:GNG on its own separately from the fact that the overall awards program has already cleared GNG, because the category is not really a standalone topic — the burden of clearing GNG is on the Grammy Awards as a whole, not on each individual category. The separate by-year and by-category articles are a formatting choice; we spin off the separate subpages in order to keep the parent article at a manageable size, not because each category is really a truly standalone topic independently of the Grammies as a whole. Yes, there's some potential for this to be improved, but it should be kept — because if it doesn't exist, then where is a user supposed to go to (a) compare the winners across the years in which it was presented, or (b) find any information about why it stopped being presented after 1960? If this category had been presented only once, then we could justifiably redirect it to the article for that year — but if it was presented more than once, then there's an WP:XY competition between the years. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcats and Clarityfiend. Worth keeping as it was a Grammy. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prime, Inc.

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

Not notable, the only reference used that is not their own website is used to point to a fact that isn't stated in the source. "second largest refrigerated carrier.. in US". ツStacey (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant independent coverage (though there is difficulty because search results are obscured by the commonness of the word "prime"). Peacock (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comments. Most likely non-notable (did not find anything noteworthy in a short Google search). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reno R. Rolle

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

This was previously kept on procedural grounds as the nominator turned out to be a sockpuppet.

This article is an obvious autobiography. It has only two real editors, both of whom have no contributions to Wikipedia outside this topic. The article has superficial referenciness, but the sources are all churnalism - press releases masquerading as news (or in some cases not even masquerading, as PR Newswire is cited).

There are trivial mentions in some sources, but the primary claim to notability appears to be an award from Natural News, which is a bit like being given an Andrew Wakefield Prize for vaccine research.

I have looked for reliable independent sources that are about (rather than merely namechecking) the subject, but I drew a blank. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Majority of the article is based upon WP:OR. The reliable secondary sources included in the article either barely mention him in passing, but more often doesn't mention him at all and merely used to fill in with side trivia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few of the references that I checked show either no mention of the subject of this article, or only an in-passing mention. An article on a person is not the place to add minor details about BōKU International—if the organization is notable, write an article about it where ref 25 could be considered (I looked at that and it shows a passing mention for the organization but none for the person, and the mention looks more like an ad). Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find notable sources in a source check. Going through the sources provided in the article and searching for mentions of Rolle led to almost nothing - either passing mentions and in other cases hits on "Roller" with no mention at all.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranaya Marmaram

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

Cannot find any indepth coverage of this film - Not entirely sure it exists at all? Link to IMDb not an actual link - Possible hoax? ツStacey (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The movie exists and you can even watch it online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.33.253 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; the YouTube link provided above is not enough Spiderone 07:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No evidence of notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary source. Topic has 0 results from a reliable video game source search. The1337gamer (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was adapted into a manga series which is significant, but I also couldn't find any notability for the manga. SL93 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Coetzee

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Non-notable cricketers. Fails WP:NCRIC per this discussion at WT:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not pass WP:NCRIC and the other sources referenced are mainly a set of scorecards / stats pages, so not enough to pass WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Fails WP:NCRIC – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn competitor in notable competition. Not unusual. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Close (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete agree with nom. Does not meet notability. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Little/no presence in the WP:VG/RS search, indicating weak, if any, notability. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources available on this topic. The only sources in the article at the moment are store pages, which are not suitable by themselves. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Dev Hello guys, I'm the developer of the game. I have the good intention to make this Wikipedia page reliable as much as possible. Just will take a little time and efforts for me. The sources are limited to primary store page of the game, because we don't have much presence online, but I can state the true facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarfios (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're really the game's developer then you are a conflict of interest in the editing of the article and your opinion here. TheDeviantPro (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that's a discussion from the entry page, so it's suitable. After all isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia after all, as well as being informative? I'm just trying to document my game as a prime source.
Delete Lacks Third-party and reliable sources. Easily fails WP:GNG. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no more reliable source than the Steam page.** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarfios (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steam store pages are primary sources. Content on them is controlled and written by the developer. Wikipedia's notability guideline states that the topic needs significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above and nom. Website also does not currently exist (Google Chrome on my computer could not find it?) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream Ideas

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

Pretty obscure webcast/radio commentary operation. Also, utterly unsourced: every single reference is from Upstream Ideas itself. Calton | Talk 09:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – due complete absence of secondary sourcing to indicate notability as per WP:GNG, and due to the article appearing to be at least somewhat promotional in nature rather than encyclopedic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage exists. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Pineda

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

No independent sources in the article. A search turned up a rather thin IMDb entry. Minor appearances in reality shows, on TV, and in films. The corresponding article in Tagalog Wiki supplies no evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. A search for supporting references to establish notability turned up nothing beyond trivial mentions, and tabloid journalism. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Most sources, from what I could find, are from unreliable sources or entertainment sites such as Starmometer and PEP (Wikipedia reliability unknown). However, he does appear to have been covered in some reliable sources, such as this one by the Standard (the Standard is a major newspaper in the Philippines, albeit not one of the "Big Three"). There's also this source from The Philippine Star (one of the Philippines' top three newspapers) and apparently some coverage by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (one of the other "Big Three" papers). His acting roles don't seem to be that big yet, but given the coverage I've found, he probably passes our notability guidelines, if only by the slimmest of margins. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE and Narutolovehinata5. He's appeared in films beyond the one realty show. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing My Lobster

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

A purely local comedy group. Nothing but local sources, and no evidence of notability outside the San Francisco Bay Area -- and I'm skeptical about even that level of notability. Calton | Talk 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the previous AfD from 9+ years ago, the decision was to keep, but it seems like they really haven't gained any form of global notability since then. As mentioned, all of the sources are local, and it seems that most references to them are. I don't believe there is evidence that they are globally notable enough to garner their own article. bojo | talk 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 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 Airbus. Content may be merged from history as editorial consensus may direct. Disambiguation is obviously not an option because there are not multiple pages with the title "Airbus A3xx series". Sandstein 08:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A3xx series

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Low-quality article, but more importantly little here is not covered elsewhere. This may be rewritten and expanded into something like Airbus civilian products (A3xx is not a common term), but for now this is better as a redirect than an article. f eminist 08:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment A3XX is pretty common, but it is a synonym of A380. However, "A3x0" is used for the series of aircraft. So rename to Airbus A3x0 series per [5][6][7][8] etc -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, there is already a list in Airbus, in fact two as the article contains a list of aircraft types as well as of orders by type. FWIW and pace OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Boeing 7x7 is (rightly) a redirect also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambig page rather than delete. Where would this redirect to? Nördic Nightfury 13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Nightfury: To Airbus, as already indicated, where the relevant lists are that I discussed. The lists already point to each of the aircraft types, so no further "disambiguation" is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Airbus then Delete. This article serves as content fork and is an unlikely search item. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD:G11, company marketing director Ollpsson blocked as advertising-only account. – Athaenara ✉ 23:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaplanet

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The parent company, and awards the company has claimed to have won do not have existing pages on WP. Outside of those claims of significance, the article reads as a resume without any additional explanation as to why this company is notable. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made edits so the article is unbiased and have relevant references to be able to be kept in Wikipedia. Since it is a group with annual turnover of 55 million dollar, I really think it makes sense to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollepsson (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam, replete with an office directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 3 April 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 America's Next Top Model (cycle 23). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Biticon

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

Fails to clarify with WP:NMODEL after creator removed the WP:PROD tag which was due to expire on 4 days. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 23). She doesn't have notability independent of this show. Imalawyer (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 April 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rel McCoy

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician, whose strongest claim to passing WP:NMUSIC is being a "featured" artist on other musicians' recordings (i.e. not a strong claim at all) and with no strong reliable source coverage about him in media. The sourcing here is almost entirely a mixture of primary sources and blogs -- there are just two sources here (Exclaim! and HipHopDX, #11 and #14) that count for anything at all toward getting him over WP:GNG, and both of them are blurbs rather than substantive coverage. No prejudice against recreation if and when he starts garnering a lot more reliable source coverage than this, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Sharma

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter with no top tier fights yet. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 April 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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Skies are Closer in Homesh

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Keep added subsequently. Lourdes) Hi there. Did you consider WP:NFILM? The film is taught at a course at the University of Florida.^[9] and has been featured in the 25^th Annual Association for Israel Studies Conference^[10] Lourdes 10:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have just deleted the whole summary section for being a copyvio from two sources. I copyedited the lead before noticing that the original, too, was a copyvio. There's not much left here, and no RS. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Keep. E.M.Gregory has done a great job adding reliable sources, and I have added more. The article now meets GNG. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep minor documentary film, but it was shown at film festivals and did get some coverage in newspapers (see in particular Haaretz article that I added) and an academic - an academic who takes a highly critical,unsympathetic attitude towards the settlement movement) discusses this film in both a book and a journal article. I think sources I have added suffice to pass notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep Following E.M.Gregory's sourcing. Note that this is a politically interesting subject matter shot by an a-typical director (religious right female director), a point view mostly missing from Israeli cinema, which makes this more notable than it would otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClearDB Documenter

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

No evidence this software is notable. Lack of any references to independent reliable sources. I looked for references myself in Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, could find nothing. Most of what a web search turns up is just the vendor's own website, also some hits on sites with low threshold for inclusion (such as download.cnet.com and software.informer.com) and some reseller websites (componentsource.com), but nothing which is high quality and independent of the vendor to indicate that this software is notable. SJK (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Thank you for bringing this up. I am working on the issues in the ClearDB Documenter article and will consider all your remarks. Scott tiger 2002 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites and incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA who has added info on several Conquest Software Solutions products, so likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and move to draft space. El_C 05:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Women March Against Hate

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

Minor protest with only local news coverage. — JFG ^talk 07:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to March Against Hate and expand the article's scope to include Seattle (source, source, source), San Antonio (source, source, Stevens Point (source), Pittsburgh (source), etc. I already had plans to expand the scope of this article beyond just Portland, but I seem to never be given more than a couple hours to work on an article before it's nominated for deletion. User:JFG, it would be really helpful if you'd be willing to let articles develop, or express your concerns on the talk page before immediately nominating every Trump-related article being created. But, here we are, so I hope editors will take time to consider this article expansion instead of voting to merge/delete solely based on this Portland content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to develop articles before putting them out there, use the Draft space. This will avoid drama. Note that I did support you when you recently expanded an article that had been quickly pushed to AfD. However, when you create weaker stubs in article space, you are setting yourself up for criticism. — JFG ^talk 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, it would have been nice to have more time to work on the article before AfD, because now I can't move the page and expand its scope until this discussion ends. This could have been solved by simply moving the page or posting a note on the article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Another Believer. Frankly this could have been done with a merge tag with less drama than an AfD. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would move the page and start expanding the article's scope now, but I understand I should not move the article during an AfD discussion. If this is not true, please let me know and I'll get to work! Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move and keep per Another Believer.LM2000 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've started expanding the article's scope in an attempt to illustrate how and why I think this article should be saved. I cannot move the article to March Against Hate while this discussion is ongoing, but my goal is to have a parent article with section for related demonstrations. I've moved Portland details to a section, listed a few cities in the lead, and look forward to expanding this list of cities and their respective sections soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I'd like for you to please consider withdrawing this nomination. I'd like to move the article to March Against Hate and expand the article appropriately. Currently, this discussion is preventing me from being able to do so. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend working on Draft:March Against Hate, and meanwhile letting the discussion about the Portland march run its course. In reply to Montanabw, I will note that there was no article to merge to when I nominated this one for deletion (unless you meant to merge it with the generic Protests against Donald Trump article). — JFG ^talk 14:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I shouldn't need to move content to the draft space and allow the deletion of this page, when it can simply be moved... But you prefer to let this discussion run its course, so that's fine, I just had to ask. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's fine to expand the contents while the discussion is ongoing. Editors will be able to decide whether the expanded article is worth keeping, independently of the title. If the article is kept, it will be moved. — JFG ^talk 15:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there national sources? Otherwise the vast majority of this coverage appears to be local, which makes the article a coat rack for minutiae of local events rather than a singular national event czar 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I'm not sure yet. I'm still working on other Trump articles that have been nominated for deletion/merge (hard to keep up!), not to mention, it's hard to motivate myself to work on articles marked for deletion. (Then again, this may be the reason certain editors are nominating many Trump-related articles as soon as they are created.) But IF there is a lack of sourcing describing a single national "March Against Hate" campaign, how do you feel about a more general article called "Marches against hate"? Don't we need an article to document these related demonstrations? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sourcing, these marches appear to be more anti-Trump than anything else, I would recommend covering them in the existing Protests against Donald Trump, whereby they can split out summary style. czar 23:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Interestingly, the rally in Stevens Point, Wisconsin had nothing to do with Trump. More research is needed to develop a more thorough list of "marches against hate" and determine if there are enough connections to justify an article about Marches against hate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it a local protest with only local coverage unless it's linked to something broader. In any event, I'd ask for the page to be incubated in draftspace if the sourcing wasn't compiled but could be, potentially. czar 21:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a move to the draft space. I'd move the page myself but cannot do so until this AfD discussion closes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' WP:NOTNEWS. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEVENT. Purely trivial and local coverage only. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems. Lede asserts that this is a "series" of marches, but no sources describe them as coordinated or centrally organized. bottom line: non-notable local event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails multiple Wikipedia policies. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qin Junjie

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

Deprodded with the rationale: "easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and a 10-year career makes it hardly WP:TOOSOON". And the other editor is correct, it is not a case of WP:TOOSOON, I was attempting to give the benefit of the doubt. The actor has had a single significant role, in Noble Aspirations. That's it. Every other role is not that significant. The one other exception would have been The Legend of Qin, but he didn't appear in that film, he was voiceover talent for the animated production. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his roles in TV shows, for example Noble Aspirations, are also significant, so he passes WP:NACTOR. And Google news (for "秦俊杰") gives me 29 pages of results (so about 300 news articles, some clearly off-topic) including many detailed articles and interviews. So he passes WP:GNG. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two TV series named The Legend of Qin, a 2007-2014 anime series (The Legend of Qin (TV series)) and a 2015 live-action series based on the anime. He acted in the live-action series (with Lu Yi, Michelle Chen, Jiang Jinfu, Sun Yizhou, Gong Beibi, Leo Wu, Yu Bo, Canti Lau, Zhang Meng etc., so probably a notable series except it has no page on en.wiki yet). I'd also like to point out he has an article on 4 other Wikis including Farsi and German — not a legitimate argument I know, but something to consider. Over 300,000 followers on Sina Weibo. Even his Vietnamese Fan Club on Facebook has close to 3000 members. Timmyshin (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 37900 Gnews results in Chinese

Comment: I don't think 37,900 is correct. I am getting exactly 298 right now. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits are unreliable, but the point is he's popular and likely meets WP:NACTOR: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Timmyshin (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 1 April 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. Can be made a draft by those who like such things. Sandstein 08:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People's Climate Mobilization

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

Coverage of the event does not go beyond announcements. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for political activism. — JFG ^talk 07:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, as article creator. This event is a month away. Let the article snowball, then we can revisit again very soon. There is plenty of coverage and it is likely the article would just need to be recreated in a couple weeks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. May be a flop and can be easily restored if it turns out to be notable. Number 5 7 19:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space The event is a month away, and it would be a good idea to give the the creator time to develop the article and release it ~1 week before the event. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 07:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those who are doing research on this topic, please keep in mind many sources are referring to this event as the People's Climate March, and even the organizers' website refers to the People's Climate Movement, so you'll want to search for this phrases, too. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this is the official Facebook event page, the event may now be called "People's Climate Movement". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After more research, and given the language used on the event's official website, I propose moving this page to People's Climate Movement, but won't do so now because I don't think page moved are allowed during ongoing AfD discussions. I have, however, submitted a move request on the article's talk page, which I hope is appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. Although some demonstratinos become notable before they happen, almost all sources here are primary and PROMO. This protest march may or may not prove to be notable; the morning after will show. Until that point, WP:SOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space or otherwise putting on hold seems a good idea. If this is anything like the 2014 or 2015 marches, with participants in affiliated actions spanning a majority of the world's countries, or even just turns out very large crowds in Washington D.C., it will certainly merit an article. But at this point it does appear WP:TOOSOON. Plato Shrimp —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory gives a very concise rationale to which I can add nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zenji Nio

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

Delete Self-styled guru; page is edited and defended by obvious socks of Buddhakahika. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a witch-hunt by Jonathan Joshua. I suggest users visit the Talk page of the article and then come to their own conclusions. There are 35 references to credible and professional media outlets and publications all from 2015 onwards. Any connection to a Wikipedia article that may or may not have been made many years ago have no bearing. Any links to blogs by anonymous people have no bearing either. We can only focus on information from credible, independent, published sources. Professoremeritus (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On his user page Joshua Jonathan has derogatory references to the Buddha and has also been accused of having a bias against Indian spiritual leaders like Yogi Adityanath, a potential successor to Narendra Modi. This may also be fueling his agenda-driven crusade. Have requested meditation and welcome Arbitration as well. Professoremeritus (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like a fansite; it is (self?)promotional, making a fuzz about Zenji's "accomplishments," while nearly verbatim copying the talking points from his various websites. His main claim to notability, as far as it regards press coverage, is his work as a Buddhist chaplain at the Paralympics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can it read like a fansite when you, Jonathan Joshua were the one to create the main portion? NONE of the personal websites have been listed or quoted from. The article has a neutral AP tone and only references credible, 3rd party, published sources like newspapers. His work has been written about at the Panam Games, Parapan Am Games, Rio Olympics and Paralympics and there are 35 credible links pointing to this. He has also been written about due to his work for the rights of Dalits and Untouchables. A wiki editor's job is not to have a personal agenda byt to be fair and balanced. Professoremeritus (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly promotional material making extraordinary claims not backed by reliable sources. Being the chaplain of any given religion at any given sporting event is just no where near a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' The article should obviously stay as the subject does indeed meet the standards of being notable. The Times of India is a very credible source and refers to him as "an eminemt and international thinker" in at least 3 articles that are easily found in google. The National Post has written 2 articles about how his museum was the "biggest attraction" at Panam which was the largest event ever held in Canada. That is notable. Dozens of newspapers have reported that he has been instrumental in bringing televisiom coverage of the Paralympics in India which is very notable and relevant. Being the first Westerner to speak for the rights of so-called "Untouchables" at Diksabhumi is extremely notable - especially as that event is attended by millions, literally. This is not "just a chaplain at a sporting event". There are many actors who are not notable, and some who are. Many chaplains are not notable, this one clearly is. He also conducted the first marriage in an Olympic Village. This is notable. He sailed with an athlete and won a silver medal at Panam Games. That is notable. All of the media links are from well known and leading media, albeit in India. I find it quite concerning that anyone could dismiss such serious and reliable media reports as "not reliable". It seems to me that for some editors, "reliable" only means Western media and that is not correct. All of the links are reliable links. The Times of India probably has a bigger circulation that most Western newspapers and has done several stories on him. I am also concerned that the editor Jonathan Joshua who started this campaign against this article is the same one who edited it and at that time he did not find it worthy of deletion. It is also concerning that Jonathan Joshua apparently had a "Smash the Buddha" image and caption on his profile and is targeting a Buddhist leader. The words "Smash the Buddha" are considered "hate speech" in many jurisdictions that Wikipedia operates in including India, Nepal, Thailand and Sri Lanka etc. There is no justification even if some small sect advocatees such language as it is against the law and actionable - I will explain the legal reasoning on the talk page of the article itself. The fact that a seemingly senior Wikpedia editor like Jonathan Joshua can hold such views and be allowed to edit Buddhist themed article, is very concerning and technically makes Wikipedia liable which is very serious. I hope some unbiased Wikipedia editors can look into this, or new editors that are not biased one way or another can add their fair and balanced opinions. I will leave some more thoughts on the Talk Page of the article itself. Artbitration (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have made a few important points on the Talk page of the Zenji article itself to explain how Joshua Jonthan has broken hate laws as well as libel laws in his edits on this article - which is very serious since Joshua is a senior Wikipedia editor. Have also pointed it out that an often repeated criticism of Wikipedia is that most of the edits are only done by mostly Western males. This article deals with very sensitive issues such as the rights of Dalits as well as people with disabilities in India. Clearly editors with an Indian background should be consulted as they would have the necessary sensitivity to the serious issues as well as knowledge of the clear "reliability" of the Indian newspapers cited. It is unfortunate that such an inspirational and well-sourced article is being attacked this way.Artbitration (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The user Artbitration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appeared on Wikipedia only to make the above votes and the comments on the talk page of the article in question, has been blocked indefinitely for violating WP:NLT. Michitaro (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also diff and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats at Talk:Zenji Nio. See further this quote from zenji.org, for Zenji's view of himself:

"The sutras make it clear that when the Lord Buddha returns as Maitreya, He will be born to a Brahmin Buddhist family. Above all, in the Lotus Sutra is says that paramparo or lineage based schooling is the highest schooling and that all Heavenly Buddhas have Bharadwaj Gotra which is the exact same gotra of Zenji's lineage! Therefore, Zenji's responsibility and role as a Brahmin-Buddhist Acharya is of incalculable significance (the term Acharya itself was originally for the exclusive use of Zenji's lineage - a tradition that India upholds to this day)."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a recreation of a deleted article about the same person; Zenji Nio alias Zen Acharya. JimRenge (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has certainly gotten complicated. I knew this article smelled bad the first time I saw it. Yes, it had some references in seemingly reliable sources like the National Post and the Times of India. It seemed the figure had achieved some recognized status. But the name Zenji Nio was suspicious and photo searches confirmed it: Zenji Nio is the same person as Zenji Acharya (or Zen Acharya) (see images here and here), who has been the center of continued disruption on Wikipedia for many years. In 2011-12, a person or persons related to Acharya had peppered Wikipedia with articles and references to Acharya (including the article JimRenge mentions), to his supposed museum, to his supposed film, and in support of his particular and dubious religious doctrines (which focuses on Buddhist Brahmins, Nio Zen, etc.). One article created from this was Niō Zen, which has since been turned into a redirect. All this came to the surface in part through the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_The_New_Revolution. That AfD experienced what this AfD has as well: the sudden appearance of new SPA's participating in the AfD with grand claims about discrimination and intolerance. In that case, it became clear that these were sockpuppets: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive. Since then, Buddhahahika's sockpuppets have appeared repeatedly to disrupt Wikipedia, spouting the same religious views using bad sources. While I will leave it to the SPI to determine if the accounts that created this article are sockpuppets of Buddhakahika, it is very clear to me that they are in the least meat puppets engaged in supporting the same person. Yes, it seems like the article has a few good sources and yes it seems this person has done something that a few news sources have reported. But I have noted that some of the use of these sources is blatant POV editing, such as changing the content of quotes (see my correction [11]). I also recall that the original Karma: The New Revolution article also had some sources from The Times of India, reporting about some splendid film that, through hard searches, turned out never to exist. It seems that some of those sources may have been the result of the ability to manipulate media sources on the part of Acharya; I can't help but think some of that is the case here, too. In the end, given the history of this person--and again, Nio is Acharya--and the way Wikipedia has been long abused by supporters of this person, I must conclude that this article should be deleted. If there is an argument for notability, I would say that in the least, this article is so thoroughly tainted that it has to be dynamited and begun from scratch by truly third-person editors. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep': You are holding against him what others wrote about him 6 years ago! Is this fair? This almost seems surreal. The sources are credible and the work meets the notability guidelines. Whether or not he was involved in a film on Karma years ago or whether any fan sites talk about his lineage etc has no bearing on this article. All the article should be concerned about is --- what is cited from the reliable 3r party sources -- not what was written about some other article 6 years ago or what some fan site writes. As per your suggestion, I will try to re-edit it taking out any and all references that may be seen as controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritus (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see with the SPI archive on Buddhakahika, users associated with this person have been disturbing Wikipedia repeatedly for over five years, leading to over 30 SPI investigations, several happening each year. They have uncovered well over 100 sockpuppets. This is a continuing assault on Wikipedia, not some past occurrence. Michitaro (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does cite a number of news articles, but the ones I checked, they are just reporting a press conference where "a city NGO" complained about lack of TV coverage about another event, and it so happens that at this press conference Zenji Nio was present. This not only meets WP:1E if we are generous, it is closer to "zero event" because that press conference covered by many articles are not "intellectually independent of each other" and actually presents the views of "Suchandra Ganguly" far more than Zenji Nio. I am surprised that the article creator did not bother to pitch an article on Suchandra Ganguly (to the little I checked), but has been trying too hard to keep one for Zenji Nio. We must take press conferences with a grain of salt, as they are a sort of news-placement, generally of non-notable issue that journalists wouldn't rush to. They don't make the speakers or the journalists at that event notable. I see no persuasive reason to keep this article, and strong persuasive reasons to delete it. Plus WP:SALT it given the repeated attempts per @Michitaro's comment above. Yes, something notable occurs in future, an admin can always unsalt it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you just discount that the Times of India calls him a "noted and eminent thinker" who is invited to lecture at a mjor university in India? It shows he is notable for more than just being a chaplain. And if someone with over 100 socks vandalizes a page, is the subject of the page to be held responsible? And many independent films do not get released. If he worked on a film with Bob Thurman that did not get a major release, its reason to doubt the Times of India? I got involved when my edits on the Lotus Sutra were just overturned. It seems a few editors, all known to each other, can just make decisions as they please and with due respect, it seems someone is "trying too hard" to delete this article. All this time there was no question of notability, now suddenly there is. All this time there seemed to be consensus even with Jim and Joshua that the work with the Olympians, BBC is noteworthy and now suddenly that's discounted too? So 30 reliable sources still don't make someone notable? And I noticed the same thing with my edits on the Lotus Sutra. Somehow Paul Williams quote should be in the top section but the other quotes should be moved. And the same editors always involved. If only there was a way to engage editors who are not from the Buddhist section, there will be more fairness here. Professoremeritus (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Professoremeritus: You did not address my concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7. Redirect may be implemented if desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hauton Bransford Lee Middle School

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

Middle schools are seldom considered notable, and this one provides no claim of notability. Suggest a redirect to Reynolds School District. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator blanked, so I requested G7. Redirect would be appropriate, too. ansh 666 07:16, 2 April 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 Josephine Baker. While a close decision, I feel that the redirect argument is the consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Tribe

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

An unneeded disambiguation page, from what I can see. The only thing on the page that actually matches the title 'Rainbow Tribe' is a non-notable nickname that Josephine Baker apparently gave her adopted kids. The rest are at best a few partial title matches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a veteran at Afd but I think this is the first disambiguation page I've ever nominated for deletion, so I'll keep a close watch on this one, to ensure that I've understood policy correctly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shawn (@Shawn in Montreal:), I originally created this page because in 2006 I had gone through WP in search of the "Rainbow Tribe," (a cultural phenomenon largely from the 60s and 70s), and instead only found an article titled Rainbow Family. Myself as a child of the 60s, I had often then heard the term "Rainbow Tribe," so I created a redirect for the term, then pointing to the Rainbow Family. Now it appears that there are probably two major articles on essentially the same subject, one at Rainbow Family, and one at Rainbow Gathering, which at first glance, it appears that they might be better off merged.

This disambiguation page has since apparently changed significantly from my original redirect, and now appears to have been entirely created by others in a somewhat haphazard fashion, apparently attempting to clarify the relationship between the much larger Rainbow Gathering movement, and the many who came after it and apparently attempted to co-opt the name for less notable uses. Suggestion: First, check to see the page traffic. I would be willing to bet you that it is quite heavy, because there are lots of folks apparently in this still quite active movement. In order to help the largest number of folks, don't delete this page, but improve it. The relationship between the two major articles should be resolved, and this page should be preserved to resolve all of the obvious confusion that seems to still surround this group. If you would like to work together with me on this "cleanup process," I would be happy to do so. If instead, you might still prefer to do anything else with this page, I will say no further on it. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shawn and Scott, I agree with Scott that, depending on the age or background of the person writing/searching, they may use "Rainbow Tribe" more than "Rainbow Family" when referring to the group described in the article by the latter name. I'm not particularly attached to working on the disambig, but I think a disambig is better-suited than just a simple redirect to the "Family" article. There are also some LGBT groups, and new age groups unrelated to the Rainbow Family group but inspired by the fakelore, who are, at least informally, using "Rainbow Tribe" in names or nicknames for their groups, so, there may be more entries to add here before too long.

I also concur that Rainbow Family and Rainbow Gathering are practically duplicates and may be best merged. When I saw the AfD notice, I actually assumed that's what this was going to be about. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:CorbieVreccan suggests that "Rainbow Tribe" is an alternative name for Rainbow Family, but that is not suggested in the disambiguation page currently and it is not stated in the article. It would be better if someone would edit the article to say "also known as "Rainbow Tribe"" perhaps even with a source having that usage. And the disambiguation page entry should be revised to show:

Rainbow Family, a group committed to principles of non-violence and non-hierarchical egalitarianism, also known as Rainbow Tribe

Then we'd all be happy, and future readers/editors would not wonder why the Family item is on the disambiguation page. I'll vote "Keep" because that's what I think is fair based on what was said here, although I am not myself familiar with these terms. --do ncr am 03:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking this over again, and reading the discussion here, "Rainbow Tribe" as a term for hippie enviros (or psuedo-enviros, depending on who you talk to) who may or may not be connected to the hippie party group "The Rainbow Family of Living Light" and their "Rainbow Gatherings" may be a flash in the pan trend on social media and in certain circles. I'm not sure it can be adequately sourced. It's a social media and subculture usage. I'm not for rewriting the articles or trying to make it encyclopedic when it may be already falling out of fashion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to evolve a clear consensus and attract more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is deleted, it should redirect to Josephine Baker since that is what it is, her family. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josephine Baker, as it is the only entry that can be known specifically as "Rainbow Tribe". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the only common use of the term refers to the family of La Josephine. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'd certainly be happy with redirecting, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to a redirect. She used it first. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zamboanga Golf and Country Club

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous nominated on promotinal grounds. Still does not appear to be a notable golf course. The claim of being the one of the oldest in the country still doesn't quite cover WP:NGEO Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:29, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any significant independent reliable coverage to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable golf course....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This extraordinary article about the other oldest-golf-course contender, Iloilo Golf and Country Club, provides some more information about the Zamboanga course. I am quite sure they both are notable. --do ncr am 11:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Doncram: Extroadinary article? It is a self published blog post. SPS blogs can't be used to establish notability. Read WP:RS and WP:SPS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Malik (actor)

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

Non-notable actor. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR as has not had significant roles in multiple notable films etc. Tassedethe (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:30, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited from one's parents and there is no evidence that this person has accomplished notability in his own right, whether by WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR; no reliable sources given to support Spiderone 07:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Hellberg

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable athlete. Quis separabit? 20:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:15, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails NATHLETE as is, but an expert might be able to save it. I couldn't find anything, though. South Nashua (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:37, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG Spiderone 13:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 6 April 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. Evidence of notability has failed to be produced during this discussion. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Brooks

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

Looking behind the issues the article has the subject appears not to meet (WP:BIO and/ WP:GNG.. Notability is claimed based on a vast array of entertainment & pageant roles but none of her acting roles appear major and a search of Google, Google News and Newspapers.com is failing to provide any reliable source material indicating significant coverage. The name is somewhat generic so I also searched with combinations of Miss Alabama USA, Miss USA, Price is Right and Men in Black but still failed to find anything. Admittedly given the timeframe she was most active it is unlikely there would be much on Google now but I might have expected something to show up in the Newspapers.com archive. In short, does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- AfD's have been rejected on article subjects with less notability, e.g. Busty Heart, so it's hard to make a case for deleting this one. The PROMO and PEACOCK stuff needs to be removed or heavily modified, however. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the same reasoning, a lot of articles on pageant titleholders with some post-pageant career stuff like this have been deleted with far more in the way of WP:RS material. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss USA 1998 § Delegates, where the subject is mentioned. As indicated by North America 1000 in some other AfDs: a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Source searches are demonstrating this to be a WP:BLP1E situation, in terms of coverage in reliable sources.--Richie Campbell (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, or a redirect to Miss Alabama USA which I think is more in line with previous redirects. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have unintentionally created quite an uproar here. I just want to take this opportunity to straighten out a few misconceptions and issues.

Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

I do not work for PaigeBrooks.com and the Paige Brooks article that I created 10 years ago is in no way affiliated with PaigeBrooks.com. I created it because I thought it was appropriate for this forum due to her level of recognition and honors.

Ms. Brooks' management team has been very kind to allow me to post photos, awards, etc. with their permission, when I asked. If you have any questions or want to confirm this information that I am providing, you can contact them. They are very nice. I contact them through the email address that is publicly available on the official website.

I am certainly and obviously not an expert at Wikipedia (this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever done). I am not at all familiar with the guidelines and hope this is the correct way to get in touch with other users and administrators who have been taking issue of late.

Only now, after a recent update, have I realized that the manner in which I originally wrote the article and subsequent updates are not completely within the guidelines of your community. Luckily, through the years, I can see some of your experienced Wikipedia users have corrected my many mistakes and vastly improved the article.

The newest improvements are especially impressive. After 10 years of the article having my incorrect-for-Wikipedia writing style, I am happy to see that it meets the Wikipedia standards now.

I want to apologize for any previous, although unintended, guideline missteps. I never meant to upset anyone, although I am afraid some of my actions may have done so. I did not realize that those actions were breaking the rules. Most importantly, I do not want my mistakes to reflect on Ms. Brooks in any way.

I hope this note helps clarify things and that the article can continue to be included in Wikipedia now that it has been so vastly changed and improved, despite my inadequacies at creating and editing. Even after a decade, it is never too late to get things right. :)

I vote to keep the Paige Brooks article with the current, existing improvements.

Thank you for your understanding. missalusa (talk · contribs)

Redirect as mentioned above; rather clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. Lectonar (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have begun a basic rewrite of this article. I trimmed out most of the primary sources, and found new better references which I added to the article. Much information that was not present in cited sources has been removed. Feel free to add back anything which can be sourced to a reliable source. At thos time the article has the following sources:
USA/Teen USA USA Pageants". Miss Alabama USA/Teen USA USA Pageants. February 15, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2017
"Paige Brooks". Paige Brooks (in Spanish). Retrieved March 21, 2017.
Press, D. (2004). Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed. Allworth Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-58115-986-8. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
"The Price is Right Models Gallery: 2001 Model Search » Paige Brooks". The Price is Right Models Gallery. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
Willis, J.; Monush, B. (2004). Screen World 2003. John Willis Screen World. Hal Leonard. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-55783-526-0. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
Pignataro, Anthony (July 4, 2002). "Well-Respected". OC Weekly. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
"IMDb Salutes Hollywood Blondes". IMDb. September 24, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
"L'Vegue Magazine Aug 2016 issue". issuu. August 17, 2016. Retrieved March 21, 2017.

With all these sources including books, articles, and online sources the article subject passes WP:GNG, and has crossed the threshold of notability. This is not a one event situation since she has done several other reported and discussed things since her pageant win, including a named role in a major film, a continued role on popular tv show price is right, as well as being voted top 25 in vegas, plus the minor imdb award. I will continue to research her but @PageantUpdater you were right, many of the citations were misleading and did not verify statements in the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- All these sources are either passing mentions or extremely unreliable. See our reliable sourcing guidelines. Prevan (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with Prevan. Antionioatrylia has done an amazing job transforming the article but I feel it only lays more bare the paucity of significant coverage in reliable sources. One is a listing of all Miss Alabama USA titleholders from the official website, two are little more than image galleries, she does get a brief mention in one article but it's passing at best. As for the book references, I think there's good reason to question whether they even support what they've been cited for given the issues with many of the other citations. The most promising is the magazine but that again is just a brief mention in a list of "25 hottest people" which surely can't get her past GNG. BIO1E isn't at play here, I've always been firm in my opinion that these bios are about more than one event (and even more so here given the but part in Men in Black & appearing on Price is Right) but GNG just isn't met. Same conclusion I made when I nominated the article and hunted for any other coverage. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguing that the book references might be questionable given the issues with many other citations, PageantUpdater said, there's good reason to question whether they even support what they've been cited for given the issues with many of the other citations. I can assure you that I read the source materials, and there is no questionability at all. It seems a poor argument and failing to show AGF to even make such a statement. Maybe try reading the sources yourself. I stand by my discussion points and my !vote in this matter. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antonioatrylia, I only suggested that because when I click the links to "Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed" and "Screen World 2003" they both only show me the front cover and not the inside of the book. I'm curious as to how you were able to read the source materials, because I would be interested in doing the same? As you are well aware we've had to remove references from the article because, in your own words we've had to remove references because they don't cover what they are supposed to be referencing, eg "information statement not verified or even mentioned in reference". My point was simply that it's frustrating we can't get inside the books to confirm whether the information that's being sourced to that material is actually contained within it. That's a separate issue to my belief that none of the source material remaining or available on Google and a number of reference sites show significant coverage in reliable sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC

Not sure which browser you are using or what @PageantUpdater. The model book by D Press had a 3 1/2 to 4 page article. Even if it says there is no ebook availABLE, if you do sequential searches in the book, you can read large sections and chapters of books online. The best chance is google book search. Also if available download the free preview which may have what you might be looking for. If that does not help, I go ahead and buy the ebooks. Again, I assure you both of those two book references are solid, and support the statements which they cite.You can take me at my word. I spent like two hours on the article and did many searches. That one editor changed all our positive work today putting back most of the primary and unreliable sources we removed. I reverted back to your last stable version. I asked them not to add thAT stuff back in without first discussing it on the talk page in accordance with WP:BRD. Please keep an eye out there. Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about the search feature *headsmack* thanks for that & for your good work with this article. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama USA Sorry, but the sources are essentially barrel scraping. Many are also not reliable. For example,

Press, D. (2004). Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed. Allworth Press - This is an independent publisher and the source is essentially self publihed
Willis, J.; Monush, B. (2004). Screen World 2003. John Willis Screen World. Hal Leonard. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-55783-526-0. - Screen world is essentially a directory recording films/events of the year
OC Weekly Extremely trivial mention and a quote. I could have been standing there and they would have quoted me

I would be happy if someone can show me actual significant coverage in reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete None of the sources give us the indepth coverage beyond local for winning the pageant needed to show a pageant winner is truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article needs improvement, expansion. Not deletion. Several sources provides notability. BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what sources provide notability and provide examples of her receiving significant coverage in them? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: I'd still be interested in an answer to the above question... --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable pageant winner; nothing stands out about this contestant and sources are just not there. The article contains uncited trivia such as

"Her philanthropy and volunteerism extend to her church, Junior League, animal rescue..." etc.

Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although this looks potentially condemned to a no consensus split based on views on policy, I am willing to relist this in the hope that further contributions to the debate will lead to a clear community view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:51, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With redirect as an alternative. Comments: This is a WP:BLP. Notability: The subject is not notable for a standalone article per WP:GNG and other reasons. The references for notability and for article content are not there. While I can appreciate passion, and someone being a BIG FAN, that ultimately means bias and when that is present no amount of WP:policies and guidelines will will be persuasive. Because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is a feeble argument as best. We use reliable sources and present what those sources state, and anything else is WP:OR. We can not use a self-published source for notability, nor primary sources, or those that are too close to the subject. This is on any article and BLP's are held to a higher standard.
- There is an advanced misconception floating around concerning deletion versus redirect, versus !vote to keep. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection gives an alternative to deletion and a !vote to redirect is still a !vote that the article does not belong, but might have a place somewhere else. Trying to "NOT-count" comments supporting redirect, or somehow explain that a redirect is separate so there appears to be no consensus is a fallacy.

This article is unsuitable for standalone status. There are seven editors that have !voted to delete, redirect, or a combination. There are 3 keeps !votes, including one weak-keep, and if ALL the arguments on both sides were valid there is still a 2.33 to 1 ratio that the article does not deserve standalone status and is certainly already a clear community view.

Being a #1 fan of a subject is great but does not help notability, and calling the subject, or a representative, would not help as that is not a published reference and would be a primary self-reference, and WP:OR. References: Intentional---or unintentional (in good faith) ref-bombing is superficial. Primary references do not count towards notability nor adding a local reference to a Miss baby diaper pageant. IMDb is not acceptable as a reference, and why it is used, if at all, in the external links section.

Back to the BLP issue, since BLP articles are held to a higher standard, references should be high-quality, not questionable, and the page number needs to be included. Having an "official" website does not confer notability and content like; "Her philanthropy and volunteerism extend to her church, Junior League, animal rescue, and medical/legal advocate for the ill.", is certainly OR when not referenced, and when referenced with an "official" webpage, belonging to the subject or any organization too close to the subject, is improper (not an acceptable reference and why it belongs in the "External links" section), and just WP:puffery to try to justify notability just as adding sections, with two lines of content double spaced, to make it appear there is more substance. The subject apparently won a single pageant which means it should have a place in the parent article. I argued, and lost to consensus, the keeping of an article on a "bit-part" actor because there was just not enough notability for an article even with several tiny parts in movies or commercials.

As it stands now there is "clear consensus" for delete or redirect. A redirect will preserve the history so this can be argued into possible non-existence or "saved somewhere. Otr500 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly sure how you could come to that conclusion Otr500. As I read down the list of !votes during this discussion, a cursory count is delete - 2, strong delete - 1, keep - 2, week keep - 1, redirect - 2 . Although I am aware that the closing admin gives weight or non-weight to each editor's discussion points, I say it is a little to early to reach any definite conclusion other than perhaps no consensus. Perhaps more discussion is needed to be able to form a true consensus. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect and not trying to be too funny, your math might be worse than mine. There have been exactly 10 editors weighing in so you have either miscounted or chosen to discount some !votes.

You are right that an admin will weigh the contents of !votes and will do so based on policies and guidelines. A comment is not discounted because it does not directly link to any of these just if the rationale has substance based on relevance. In trying to determine notability of a WP:BIO an editor (and admin) has basic criteria to consider. This includes: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.".

If the "depth of coverage" is lacking one may consider, "then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". This would establish a base-line for notability. We can dig deeper in trying to defend article retention by additional criteria of "Any biography", and "Entertainers". Articles on "People notable for only one event" almost always ends up with a Pseudo-biographies. This is one of my concerns and having to add possible use of IMDb, that is not an acceptable source, to try to bolster notability, and "primary sources" (...may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.), is just trying to save an article because we like it. Expanding an article, in hopes the effort will be a notice that the article is salvageable, when there is still a lack of reliable sources, just introduces WP:OR at worse and trivial and actually unsubstantiated content at best, evidenced by the self-promoted Philanthropy section and content. We can "grasp at straws" but ultimately a lack of actual notability is just that, which can't be fixed with additional edits. When this is apparent should we delete, merge, or redirect. The later ---at this time--- is evident. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most mentions are trivial or do little to establish notability of the subject. SamsaK (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that they pass WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Roberts (academic)

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

GNG failure. I couldn't quickly find anything else about him in a search that brought up several more notable Kevin Roberts'. Assuming there's not much more out there. South Nashua (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As a college president, he was an advocate for rejecting federal aid in order to retain independence. He's quoted in the New York Times about it here and he wrote an opinion piece for The Federalist here.
He also filed suit on behalf of his college to oppose the contraceptive mandate in the ACA. Please see this article from the Caspar Star-Tribune.
After that he was appointed to be executive v.p. of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. His appointment was covered in the Caspar Tribune (same article) and in the Austin Business Journal here.
He's interviewed about prison reform on a Texas radio station (KFYO) here.
Sure, the article as it stands is pretty stubby. But that argues for beefing it up, not deleting it. In my view, the subject meets WP:GNG. ~~In my view, this nomination seems flawed. WP:BEFORE~~.David in DC (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my last sentence. It was too harsh. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think being head of Wyoming Catholic College on its own might be enough to pass one of the prongs of academic notability. However David in DC has identified multiple cases of coverage, certainly enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:10, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject qualifies WP:PROF#C6, and also WP:GNG because of coverage in secondary sources. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikazes: A Deathography

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

I found no coverage that shows notability. This fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:41, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found virtually zero coverage of this film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferra Ferri

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

Non-notable film fails to pass general notability guidlines. The article was deleted recently after the expiration of prod. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participation is needed to form a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:45, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find no significant coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 8 April 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 Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9. Consensus was to redirect (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SM-9

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

Non-notable firearm variant; redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 (which incidentally is also unsourced) was undone by an IP. Only in-article sources are images; can't find anything else remotely reliable. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as ~~copyright vio~~ direct copy of a patent application. Earwig comparison Mortee (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 I removed the two sections that were copied and there's a bit of the article left. I'm not certain it's strictly a copyvio because I don't know the copyright status of patents, but it's an unsourced copy anyway and shouldn't be there. What's left of the article doesn't build on Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 so redirecting there seems right. Mortee (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 I went ahead and made the change.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't redirect a page while the AfD is still ongoing. Wait for the closing admin to do the redirect. I've reverted the redirect to wait for the closing admin. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 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 08:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search only found references with the subject's text, not encyclopedic coverage of the subject -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did your BEFORE search include Gbooks? This 1981 declaration was the subject of a chapter in this book, and a section in this book, it was discussed at length in this book, and so on. It meets WP:GNG. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how active this Wikiproject is, but I've linked here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Nations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to it from Freedom_of_religion#International, where it is mentioned. I wouldn't object to a redirect there but you've nominated a new -- and notable, I insist -- article for deletion within hours of its creation, rather than encouraging the editor to expand and improve it. Which is a counter-productive thing to do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- that the whole chapter be devoted to the declaration is strongly suggestive of notability:

The 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief: Some Observations (In The Challenge of Religious Discrimination at the Dawn of the New Millennium, pp 9-31)

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources I have just listed on the article talk page plus what K.e.coffman just posted here show this is a clearly notable topic that needs expansion, not deletion. LadyofShalott 17:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes V, NOR. I think sources exist such that NPOV is not an issue. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paten Hughes

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

General lack of notability. The subject of the article is marginally notable primarily for videos uploaded to Vimeo which discuss her growing tomatoes. Article was created as PR. COI issue; WP:COIN#Paten Hughes. John Nagle (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd thought about speedying this, but it didn't quite meet the criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't quite see the claim to notability - is it the tomato video? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a marginal case of notability, but it is still notability. In addition to the citations in the article I found this (although I couldn't find the editorial policy, so am unsure it is a RS); this on KABC; this from A+; while this from Glamour, is whimsical, it does point to that fact that she is publicly notable; andthis features her, and is more than a trivial mention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the sources presented by User:onel5969. None of them (individually or collectively) impress me as meeting our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 9 April 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. A pile of links is not an argument. Sandstein 08:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiridine bandım

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

Although I cannot read the language of the references, they appear to be lists of contents of CDs. I see nothing to indicate that this song has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label", which would demonstrate notability. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMdYKCuub60 Odeon Records --Samizambak (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pWY9Adc5Fk Zehra Bilir She was known as the Edith Piaf of Turkey. --Samizambak (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q91FajDX7cU Giota Lydia --Samizambak (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/pdf/eyup_akman_tiridine_bandim_sathiye.pdf (Turkish) --Samizambak (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://hbogm.meb.gov.tr/modulerprogramlar/programlar/muzik_gosteri/T%C3%BCrkHalkOyunlari/THO_Kastamonu.pdf --Samizambak (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/37/13/169022/dosyalar/2012_12/05094853_halkoyunlari.pdf Samizambak (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://vinyl.gr/His%20master's%20voice%202801-2850.html Giota Lydia(HIS MASTER'S VOICE 7PG 2821 (7XGA 755) ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΖΟΥΜΕ ΑΙΩΝΙΑ - ΓΙΩΤΑ ΛΥΔΙΑ - (Στράτος Ατταλίδης) - Συνοδεία Λαϊκής Ορχήστρας - Διεύθυνσις Θόδωρος Δερβενιώτης - Τσιφτετέλι Κυκλοφόρησε στις 15-11-1960) --Samizambak (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ayk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/M%C3%9CZ%C4%B0K-K%C3%9CLT%C3%9CR%C3%9C-VE-E%C4%9E%C4%B0T%C4%B0M%C4%B0-1.-C%C4%B0LT.pdf --Samizambak (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://docplayer.biz.tr/31375437-2-uluslararasi-muzik-ve-dans-kongresi-e-bildiriler-kitabi.html Samizambak (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep the page as there are enough sources available to meet WP:AUTHOR (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 10:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Vowel

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a blogger whose content is sometimes used elsewhere. The Huffington post ref is simply a listing of her contributions and makes no claim to establishing notability. Two others are plugs for her book. I can't see any evidence of notability here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent, 3rd party sources discussing her in detail to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm exceedingly confused by the rationale behind this nomination. User:Velella's description of Vowel as 'a blogger whose content is sometimes used elsewhere' ignores her published book, and the maths around the references do not make sense. As Velella says, three of the sources do not necessarily establish notability - and they are neither intended to nor expected to, since the notability guideline requires only two reliable sources. Such sources are in the article; a CBC article is not a 'plug for her book' but a discussion of her and her work, in some detail, which is precisely the sort of reference the notability guideline accepts, as is the Eastern Door article (for r eference for those who may not know, the Eastern Door is the newspaper of record for the Mohawk people of the Haudenosaunee). The Kirkus Review source is a book review, very different from a plug, and entirely acceptable for an author. If interviews with authors and book reviews are 'plugs' you're going to have to delete an extremely large number of author biographies! I'm including a couple more reviews and interviews but really, I do not understand why this nomination was made - nor User:Johnpacklambert's rationale (exactly how many third-party sources are necessary, if two are insufficient?). Xuháska (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Xuháska I'm not certain where you get the idea that merely two sources are required as the guidelines clearly state "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Even if two was the magic number, it would still come down to quality and depth of coverage. The CBC source is an interview. Interviews are not automatically reliable sources and must be shown to be independent of the subject (which in this case is true), the source has editorial standards (does it promote the subject in a non-objective way? -- again, the CBC sources is fine for this), and whether the interview is in-depth and/or scholarly. It's a very short interview so that's up for debate. As for the review, the link seems to be broken so it's impossible to evaluate but critical reviews are fine as sources, but if that's the only source available that would indicate a lack of in-depth and widespread coverage. The nominator's rationale is not incorrect. There are three sources, with only two possibly being useful, but they both have problems. I'm not saying I believe this should be deleted but we can't just throw around assumed "rules" without examining what they actually say and how the sources may or may not satisfy policy and guidelines. freshacconci (✉) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Freshacconci: where are there 3 sources? The article contains ten. I just picked out the best 3 as part of this discussion. For what it's worth, both review links work for me. Xuháska (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd still like to see a couple more media sources if possible — the QWF award nomination, in particular, should be sourced to a media article rather than to the QWF's own press release of its shortlist — but CBC News, the Winnipeg Free Press, Kirkus Reviews and Eastern Door are all perfectly acceptable sources. Book reviews in reliable and well-established publications do count toward a writer's notability — amateur book reviews on blogs and GoodReads and Amazon wouldn't assist, but if reliable sources are publishing professional critical reviews of her work then notability is demonstrated by those reviews. Note, for the record, that I was the nominator of the WP:TOOSOON and entirely primary sourced first version — and I'm satisfied that this version has properly addressed the reasons why I listed the original iteration for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR, because the subject's work has been reviewed in multiple independent sources: Kirkus Reviews, Winnipeg Free Press, The Millstone. There's also this source from CBC (8:07 radio presentation), which has some interview content, but also includes analysis of the subject's work. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 8 April 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. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of romance films

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

Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question is there something about this list in particular that makes it worth deleting, or are lists of films by genre in general arbitrary in your view (perhaps better handled by categories)? I ask because there are several such lists gathered at Template:Lists of films by genre and I'm wondering if it would be inconsistent to delete just one. On the other hand, if you wanted to delete all of them that seems like a bigger change than a single AfD could reasonably cover, so perhaps an RfC would be a better way to go. Mortee (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may have opened a can of worms here. I nominated this article only because I fell across it, as containing an ambiguous link to a DAB page. (1) I'm a big fan of categories: if an article contains persuasive evidence that it belongs in a category, well so it should be. (2) I am no a fan at all of open-ended lists, especially ones with poor WP:LISTCRITERIA. They are open to abuse. Entries in them are of four kinds. (a) Bluelinks, all well and good. (b) Redlinks, where it looks like someone should write the article. (So, why not do so now, rather than add cruft to a list article? (c) Redlinks, where a search seems to show that the topic is not notable. (Those can be difficult. Proving that an unwritten article is about a non-notable subject is hard work.) (d) Bluelinks to DAB pages. Those combine the problems of (b) and (c). Narky Blert (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:CLT; however, it probably would need to be improved substantially. ansh 666 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTESAL because it is incredibly easy to find lists of romance films in secondary sources that can be pulled together for Wikipedia's list (at minimum) and because there is precedent on Wikipedia to have lists of films under a particular genre. In addition, WP:CLT says that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. If anything, a list allows for sharing of additional detail, such as release year, country or countries, or even synopses so readers can decide if a film is worth reading about in-depth. If an article has problems, then it should be edited to be without problems. For example, you can just go ahead and remove the red links. Then you can find a secondary source listing romance films and see about adding films to this list or adding the reference to a film that is already on the list. (That way we don't have to engage in deleting something and re-adding it.) Can you do this instead of pushing for deletion? I'll help implement a list source into this list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Sazzad

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

Subject of article does not merit inclusion into the encyclopedia as he barely passes WP:GNG , WP:GNGACTOR and fails WP:ANYBIO The subject, an actor, has little to no significant coverage, the Article itself is written poorly. I say a Speedy Delete is best. In future when or if he has more coverage, an article about him could be written Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm confused. The nomination states that the subject barely passes WP:GNG. A topic that passes GNG (and doesn't violate what Wikipedia is not) is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. So why is this at AfD? Seems a tad bitey to A7 it 20 minutes after it was created, and take it to AfD hours later, despite several editors pitching in to improve it. It sounds like a speedy keep.

If the article is poorly written, that's something to address by editing, not by deletion. And it isn't as if the five sources cited in the article are the only coverage. If you want to look at his TV work, there's 2014: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]; 2015:[20][21][22][23][24][25]; 2016: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]; and 2017: [41][42][43] And that's just the English-language, online, no-subscription-needed reliable sources. Since his work is in Bengali, I wager there are more sources available in that language. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources provided by editor above, Worldbruce has been scrutinized by me and from the very few reliable sources he provided, it is observed that they do not in any way show subjects notability, they are mere announcements, eg "Mr A, Mr B, Mr C, and pretty Miss D" are going to feature in this film, that is not Wikipedia standard now is it?? as per WP:GNG, that isn't significant coverage enough. As of today I am still unable to locate a source that discusses the subject in depth. a speedy delete is still best option Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You write "very few reliable sources", but there are 37. 36 are articles in major English-language newspapers of Bangladesh: The Daily Star, The New Nation, Dhaka Tribune, The Independent, and The Daily Observer. The 37th, Jago News 24, is a Bengali-language news operation that, according to Alexa, is the 26th most popular website in the country. To quote from WP:RS, "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" (about non-academic subjects).
- With regard to the depth of sources, you ask "that is not Wikipedia standard now is it??" Yes, it is. WP:GNG says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As an example, no original research is required to extract from the first source above that:

Sajjad featured with actress Sadia Islam Mou and singer Agun in director Arun Chowdhury's 2014 telefilm for Channel i, Kaliganjer Audbhut Bari. To reach the three day shoot at an ancient Zaminder Bari in Taota, Sajjad and the rest of the cast had to travel by ambulance to get through roadblocks set up by political protesters.

WP:BASIC elaborates, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Each of the sources above adds a different nugget of information about his TV career. Individually they may seem insignificant, but together they convey the picture that for the past four years one could hardly turn the TV on in Bangladesh without seeing him in soemthing. Deeper sources than those above are the second and fourth sources cited in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce I suppose it is left to the community to decide notability as we clearly do not think alike, notability should include significant coverage as stated by WP:GNG if you feel because the subject has announcements from websites, he deserves inclusion into the encyclopedia then I really am dazed. please know this ; Majority of sources you cited are gossip blogs just copying from themselves over and over again. With all due respect sir it is as though a WP:CONFLICT is at play here. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It is absolutely unreasonable to call nationally published (i. e. printed) newspapers gossip blogs. I assume you, Celestina007, are not from Bangladesh and are not familiar with the newspapers there but Worldbruce has wiki linked them. You have the option to learn about them. These are Newspapers, The Daily Star is the largest circulated English language newspaper in the country. These are just English language sources, the Bengali (the national language of Bangladesh) sources should be more numerous. The sources are solid and numerous, enough to demonstrate notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources cited in the article and those identified above show that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Nom has advanced no coherent rationale for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerama

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

Contested prod. Newish magazine. No notability established. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search and GNews search shows it fails to establish notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for Soccerama seems fine and in good order. The publication employs key contributors (leading soccer pundits, award-winning journalists) and has a growing circulation. There are magazines with smaller circulations and smaller editorial budgets whose Wikipedia pages are not up for deletion. Perhaps the Soccerama page might be shorter but the publication in question has a degree of notability and should remain within on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.116.235 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMAG; lack of independent sources available. The keep vote above is merely saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 13:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - notability has been proven on the grounds that leading soccer pundits and award-winning journalists are among the regular contributors to this publication. Also, Soccerama is approved by the International Sports Press Association and Uefa, the game's European governing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.202.251 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any independent sources that justify these claims? Spiderone 09:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be arranged. Would the sources be for public perusal or privately, through this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.202.251 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather they were added to the article directly but if that isn't possible then please link them in this discussion Spiderone 07:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication magazine satisfies any of the four criteria laid down at WP:NMAG. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - the publication has among its regular contributors David Pleat, Clive Toye, and Steve Darby. These pundits/experts would not be involved with the magazine if it not established its notability. If there are problems with sources, let's edit down the article or improve the sourcing. But if this article is deleted because the publication lacks notability, then there are other similar publications that should also have their Wikipedia articles deleted for the same reason. We have to be balanced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.202.251 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other similar magazines that aren't notable with Wikipedia articles then please let us know and we can deal with it. The fact that other similar articles exist isn't a reason for keeping this one. Spiderone 07:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors, doesn't pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NMAG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 8 April 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 I Am (Pete Townshend album). No evidence of the notability required for stand-alone articles. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parvardigar (Pete Townshend song)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Am (Pete Townshend album). I don't have access to the sources listed in the article. If those have significant coverage it could change my opinion. Searching found nothing helpful. Lacks coverage needed for a separate article. WP:NSONG suggests redirecting to the album. Gab4gab (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Just a song no one knows. User:Dazedbythebell

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We shouldn't keep redirects from such convoluted titles. The entry at Parvardigar (disambiguation) will suffice if anyone's searching for it. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and hoping the closer considers a Keep. This song honors a major prayer of Meher Baba, who Townshend has written and dedicated and recorded three albums about. The reason I put 'strong' is that several Meher Baba related pages have been deleted recently, Wikipedia's collection of Meher Baba articles has suffered for it, and am hoping to stem that tide. Plus, Pete Townshend is a major singer/songwriter of his generation and the era, and his single-song pages are fewer than many others working at his level. Randy Kryn 16:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reconsidered SaintAviator lets talk 02:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above "keep" votes are rather weak (from @Michig: and @SaintAviator:). If anyone wants this to be kept, you should provide sources to support that this has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party resources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm in favour of deletion here. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not understanding your reasoning "We shouldn't keep redirects from such convoluted titles" since this isn't a redirect, but a song by Pete Townshend released on more than one record. A 'convoluted' title also is going over my head, for it seems concise and descriptive, unless 'Parvardigar (Townshend song)' is more concise (and that would maybe be a better title). The song seems to have made the prayer more prominent, which may have been Townshend's intent, but as a stand-alone page I don't see much wrong with it except a need for a couple of more sources (the one source is a book on Townshend, which should qualify as a good source). Randy Kryn 20:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of deleting the article (as indicated) as there is insufficent sourceable encyclopedic content about it. If we decide not to keep the article, the question is then do we keep a redirect with this title. Anyone searching for this song is unlikely to type this title into the search box, they're just going to search for 'Parvardigar', which will take them (eventually) to the disambiguation page, where this song is mentioned. The crux of it is, if nobody had created this article, we wouldn't have created a redirect with this title, so we shouldn't keep a redirect with this title just because someone did create this article.--Michig (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: I apologize for my mistake. I intended to ping @Randy Kryn: in my original comment, but accidentally pinged you by mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Ref. Mentions the song. [44] and [45] SaintAviator lets talk 22:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a ref to the prayer that there is an article for here. The second ref is to the album CD that there is already an article for here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am in favor of deletion as there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to support this as notable enough for its own separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge with the EP found here. All the same information is duplicated there. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The EP article contains all the info mentioned in the song article. Actually the EP only contains the three versions of this song. Hoverfish Talk 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the EP article. I would say merge, but as Hoverfish points out all the information is already there. Reyk _YO! 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Emery (Ohio politician)

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 03:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at one time our guidelines held that holders of major party nominations in US house races were notable, we have since realized that many of these people just do not have enough reliable source coverage and we have made our notability criteria stricter. Emery does not meet our current notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as defeated political candidate and has no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and this makes no credible claim that he has preexisting notability for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-election-related notability found, not even the fact that he once dressed as Arnold Schwarzenegger for a Halloween.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched Google for "Ed Emery (Ohio politician)" I got "about 8,080,000 results." One was about him getting in trouble over theft: http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2011/07/14/Jury-convicts-Ed-Emery-in-theft-of-metal-castings.html But I wonder if the proliferation of Google hits is a symptom of mistaken Identity. Did he move to Missouri and get elected? http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=126&year=2009 Just asking before making a rush to judgement. --Truthtests (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Emery (Ohio politician) and Ed Emery (Missouri politician) are not the same person. The Ohio politician ran for an Ohio Congressional seat in 2006, while the Missouri politician's first term of office was in 2003. --Enos733 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 8 April 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 I'm an Albatraoz. Consensus for a redirect as the subject was only notable for a single song (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 10:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Ekberg

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

Not notable outside of the song "I'm an Albatraoz" and her older brother AronChupa. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song charted. Became a global hit. She seemingly has released a follow-up single. For me this passes WP:GNG and MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's branded as Little Sis Nora, and also notable ~~therefore~~. Anyway, my opinion might be biased, considering I created the article. RoCo^(talk) 10:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the song, in which she is currently mentioned. No independent notability per WP:ENT or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs expansion and improvements not redirect or deletion. Clearly covers aspects of WP:GNG and MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to song. She was only a featured artist and established no notability of her own. Precedent is that featured artists who did nothing on their own get redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to song. Fails WP:BAND. Sjö (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley S. Leavitt

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

Unsuccessful candidate for an election, no other claim to notability. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 03:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus is that defeated house of representative contestants with no other coverage are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and this makes no credible claim that he has preexisting notability for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage of his candidacy was surprisingly intense and in-depth, hard-fought primary for the right to challenge a popular incumbent, the fact that he was an actual steelworker, but all coverage was all campaign-related and regional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this meets the notability requirements as it has been covered in many reliable sources. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 10:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best F(r)iends

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

IMDB is not a reliable source Kandry321 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)— Kandry321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps not, but is it notable? I mean it follows one of the worst movie of all time, this sounds quite promising.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of this article had a couple of independent sources, which were removed. And there are more articles about this production that can be seen in a GNews search for Tommy Wiseau. On the other hand, nearly all of these news articles appeared around October 12, 2016; since then, the sources I found are basically bare mentions of this film in articles that focus on The Room or The Disaster Artist. So in view of the dictates of WP:NFF I am not sure if this, um, long-awaited film is ripe yet for its own article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this film is certainly notable as there has been a ton of in-depth coverage, internationally no less. [46][47][48]And many more. However, there is serious concern about the accuracy of the coverage, even by reliable sources, in Talk:Best_F(r)iends by an editor who's username is that of the stated ~~director~~ producer. Apparently all that was shot was a teaser trailer but it was reported that the entire film was shot and they are now actually in production with a different director. However no source confirms any of this updated information. I just don't know right now. --Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, has been profiled in quite a few major publications like Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Independent, so it certainly has notability.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, the editor's username you bring up (my own) is not that of the stated director, but of one of the producers. It should be noted that the film's official website stipulates information that confirms the amendments made to the Wikipedia page earlier this month. This reality is concurrently reflected by the film's IMDB page and official Facebook/Instagram/Twitter outlets. Kind regards. --User:Krisbmacgregor —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Krisbmacgregor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another Vote for Strong keep, Newly lauched Official Website has production photos If you follow on their social channels, this is a legitimate film in post production. 173.198.9.50 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — 173.198.9.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added a couple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer, the sources you added are not reliable – their original removal is one of the reasons this discussion is happening in the first place. They were removed early in March for a reason. The articles in question contain inaccuracies that do not reflect the film's reality. Kind regards. -- Krisbmacgregor (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisbmacgregor: Explain to me how the sources are not reliable. Entertainment Weekly and Hollywood Reporter are reliable publications. If you think the sources contain errors, then you need something more than "I know they're wrong". We can't use word of mouth as a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: As a member of the film's production team, I can certify that both the sources in question contain factual inaccuracies. As I have mentioned to Oakshade, in the event that their not being referenced means the whole article fails to meet Wikipedia's threshold for sourcing, then the production team would prefer to see the whole article taken down for the time being rather than left up with mischaracterizing sources referenced. Many kind regards. -- Krisbmacgregor (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisbmacgregor: If the sources are inaccurate, then try to contact the creator of the sources. We have no proof besides your own word of mouth that the sources are inaccurate, and cannot take down the article just because you think the sources are wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: What matters is that all of the film's official outlets (website, Facebook fan page, etc.) substantiate that the director and production details stipulated by EW, HR, and others in October 2016 are demonstrably inaccurate. There is no reason for obviously in-error sources to be referenced on Wikipedia, in keeping with the platform's strong preference for truth. Kind regards. -- Krisbmacgregor (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This film's received quite a bit of press, with a consistent flow of attention. I'd say it satisfies the notability requirement. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The film is covered by many reliable sources. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:10, 4 April 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. For lack of interest in this discussion... Sandstein 08:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kaminer

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

Fails NHOOP since the subject was not a figure in the listed leagues. Also fails GNG since the only source that offers a biography on the subject, is from his own program. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added some third party, reliable sources and beefed up the content. Kaminer was the coach of one of the most notable programs in the first half of the 20th century. It definitely needed cleanup but I hope my edits remedied concerns. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort Jrcla2 but I'm not fully convinced yet. The sources from 1971 are about when David Polansky resigned and the immediate fallout. His hall of fame induction seems somewhat weak since it is not a notable hall. I wish there were some sources on his career at the college then this would have been easier. Still, I could be wrong, and I'm more happy you actually added the content instead of just listing possible sources. So thank you for that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remind

Reminder: posting invoked guideline: WP:NATH#NHOOP:

Basketball figures are presumed notable if they

Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Liga ACB, EuroLeague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Lega Basket Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, Greek Basket League, Israeli Basketball Premier League, ABA League (and its predecessor the Yugoslav Basketball League), or the VTB United League (and its predecessors the USSR Premier Basketball League and the Russian Professional Basketball Championship).
Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft.
Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League.

--Mr. Guye (talk) 05:34, 1 April 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loza Abera

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

Delete: non-notable sportsperson. Quis separabit? 02:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Sourcei n article clearly indicates that not only has she played senior international football, she is also the captain of her country. Needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY clearly. Smartyllama (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is pretty poor but that is not an excuse for deleting, passes WP:NFOOTY quite clearly as an international women's footballer. As per comments above the article needs improvement not deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 4 April 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Jones (footballer)

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

Was a contested A7 over a month ago. Still no improvement. Also, per comment on talk page, appears to be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The commonality of the name made research difficult, but could not find any in-depth sourcing to show this particular individual with this name passes WP:GNG, and he doesn't appear to pass WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - as per citation provided by Fenix down. Shows that he passes WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that he is at Spring Arbor University alone shows he is a non-notable sports figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in a senior international game for the BVI per this, meaning he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. @Onel5969 and Johnpacklambert: you might wish to review your !votes. Giant Snowman 19:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question, GiantSnowman - the citation you provided, does that indicate he actually played in the game, or that he was simply on the team's roster for the game? Although the WP article states that he received his first two caps in 2016, that is uncited. I could find no sourcing showing he actually played in the games with BVI. Always ready to reconsider my nom (let alone my !vote), but right now I'm not seeing proof that he passes NFOOTY... unless I simply don't understand the meaning of your link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he played in the game. Giant Snowman 07:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. This NFT link confirms him as a starter for BVI in their match against Martinique in an official tournament organized by CONCACAF. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a senior international fixture for the BVI. Kosack (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passses WP:NFOOTY. Can we close this yet? Smartyllama (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any admin could have closed it since yesterday when I withdrew the nomination based on Fenix down's citation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss California. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Cavinder

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kristy Cavinder

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

I previously nominated this for Prod delete, since the clear consensus is that winners of sub-national beauty pageants are not notable for such, and anyway all the souces are from the local paper, the Orange County Register, or from Miss America itself. It was deprodded arguing the sources show notability, which they clear do not considering they are all local write ups from Orange County, and then arguing since California is not a small place we should make an exception. In the long drawn out discussion for several months on the issue, no one argued we should make winners of certain state pageants deafault notable and others not. That is a horrible plan, and here is shown why. My search for no sources showed an occasional hit from a college paper, and the Orange County register links. If this was really somewho a notable honor to California, we would be getting hits for major write ups in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times. We are not. This is just a preparatory win to enter a later pageant, and if the contestant does not win the later pageant they are not notable unless we can show more coverage for some other reason which plain does not exist here. This is a clear case of a person who is not notable. Also, the size of the state is a horrible argument. The amount of funding and prize money given to winners of such contests is a lot more in some states that are much smaller than California, and at least in some states like Utah all the press, including press that in no way covers to home town of a contestant is at least going to do some write up on the winner. There is not enough to show that Cavinder is notable, because she is not. I grow tired of all the special pleading for these articles that ignores the facts at hand. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was too generous in calling the thing a college paper article. This https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/690/from-ball-gown-to-lab-coat/ is the one "source" that the person who deprodded the article produced. It is a junk source, aka a PR release, that in no way adds to the substantial, indepdent, 3rd party coverage needed to pass GNG. Sources like this are a dime a dozen and would lead to a project even more out of control an presentist, flooded with light meaningless articles on living people who have done nothing of significance, than we already have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yet another article on a unremarkable state-level pageant winner, where the article ornamentation (infoboxes, templates, etc) take more space than the actual article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect -- Have only been able to find routine coverage naming her as first runner-up at Miss America, no significant coverage --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect as per below. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss America 2010. I did find some coverage about her, but apparently consensus is that winners of local pageants aren't inherently notable, even if they receive routine coverage for their win. However, given that she was a 1st runner-up at a Miss America pageant, a redirect to the article on the event she competed in probably wouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively Miss California would work --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss California as a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 5 April 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 most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed YouTube videos in the first 24 hours

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

This article is too specific of a category, especially when most of the information presented in this article is identical to the List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. What's next, "List of most viewed Facebook videos in the first 24 hours?" Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours per nom. Redirects are cheap (or at least this one would), and the content here is already there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G10 as duplicate of List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 04:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um... KAP03... that's not an attack page. I think you mean WP:A10. — Gestrid (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as this appears to be a legitimate search term. See also: WP:RPURPOSE. — Gestrid (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 April 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. Likely self-promotion, no reliable secondary sources. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K Ranju Rangan

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

The General Notability Guideline has not been met by this person. The sources in the article, and the sources I found myself during a WP:BEFORE search, are passing mentions. Wikipedia articles, particularly Biographies of Living Persons, require more than mere "proof of existence" - they significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As a side note, the blatant promotional nature of the article makes me suspect that the subject of the article created the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I could not find sorces on him. Clearly self created as per username of creator.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 2 April 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 Thondaradippodi Alvar#Literary works. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thirupalliyezhuchi

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

This article has no citations, and it fails to establish the notability of its subject. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thondaradippodi Alvar#Literary works, which is the article on the author and has (sources supporting) discussion of Thirupalliyezhuchi/Tiruppalli Ezuchi. Alcherin (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above Spiderone 09:19, 7 April 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. Tagged as unsourced since 2009. Wikipedia's patience is not infinite. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isometre

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

Dicdef, no sources since 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unsourced and unheard of. — JFG ^talk 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin De Clue

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

Non-notable musician. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De Lete: For a a Multi-Platinum Producer I am surprised I can find no reliable sources sufficient to write a BLP.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete padded resume, only wrote two songs for Hilary Duff, and was co-writer in both cases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 2 April 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.

April Fool's nominations

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.