Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 December	10 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax. Jujutacular (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy May[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. HindWiki^Connect 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find anything related to this topic through various Google searches. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax. I cannot find anything, and the image is fake. Marcocapelle moved the page from the author's page w/o deleting the redirect so that is why that weirdness exists. L3X1 (distænt write)05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time Wikipedia stopped having sourceless articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Año/Cero[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have enough coverage in reliable sources. Plus, looking at its website, it is just sprouting conspiracy theories. So, per verifiability, this article should be deleted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need references to significant coverage in impeccably reliable sources to establish the notability of a fringe journal/website. I can't find any but read Spanish poorly. I would reconsider if anyone finds solid references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable cult reporting journal. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. = paul2520 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 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 . Fuzheado | Talk 19:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Danielle[edit]

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

Like the previous versions of this page, the subject matter does not share inherent notability, even with a notable actress portraying them. The content of this page is entirely trivial and being depicted as a supporting character in a motion picture is not the straw that breaks the camel's back. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lot has changed in the intervening years, especially with a major film being produced where the actress is a main subject. The Disaster Artist is not simply portraying the character in The Room, Lisa, but the actress herself. Clearly surpasses the notability bar. The nomination's "entirely trivial" critique is not rooted in policy and is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm all for leaving it as is. With her rise in stardom and return to acting, I don't see any reason to delete this.(Voicebox64 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado and Voicebox64. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough to keep for now. As Fuzheado mentioned, The Disaster Artist portrays Danielle the actress, not just the character of Lisa. — Mistakenformatt (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lead in notable film Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - due to publicity about her appearance in The Room, related to The Disaster Artist, this page got over 10,000 views(!) on 8 December 2017. — Thomas H. White (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - --IamIRAQI (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets basic notability requirements.RelaxedTim (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets notability. StewdioMACK (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: It would appear as if consensus is that it is to be kept. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 06:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable actress with enough RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Bob[edit]

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

A minor character in a long-defunct magazine. I can find no reliable sources other than the book given as the third reference, and I'm not convinced that the subject has any cultural significance ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in the Encyclopedia of Science fiction and other sources such as here. The name is not just of the character but of the strip itself. Was popular in its day thoufh not hugely so according to the sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are examples of additional sources. It's also covered in Bleiler's Science Fiction the Early Years (link). Also featured in the Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana (link). Hoohahcomics 23:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Best Picture milestones[edit]

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

Exhaustive standalone list of Academy Awards trivia; term "milestone" completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE (e.g. "Only third installment in a trilogy that didn't win Best Picture with all of the installments in the trilogy nominated. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be original research. Pburka (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Pburka. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, but also WP:INDISCRIMINATE and probably original research. Egsan Bacon (talk) 08:19, 14 December 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 redirect to Canadian Light Rail Vehicle. To the nominator: please do not nominate pages you have merged content from for deletion, as DGG mentiones. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Service Car[edit]

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

Originally proposed for deletion with rationale: "Unsourced article about an unnotable topic, and not enough incoming links to make a redirect viable." Tag was removed by DGG with a proposal to merge content to Canadian Light Rail Vehicle, which has been done and thus I am now asking for the page be deleted as there are no incoming links from other articles. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quick Close and redirect When we merge an article, we must make a redirect to maintain attribution. you should have made it at the time. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Steam Man of the West[edit]

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

This appears to be a self-published novel by a non-notable author: fails WP:Nbook ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, alarm bells sound when WorldCat has nil libraries holdings, appears to have been self published using Createspace, have been unable to find any useable reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also basically just a copycat of the notable The Steam Man of the Prairies._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Like Who?[edit]

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

This article has been sitting here since 2009 waiting for references to be added. The notability of this book is not asserted, and the only references to the material are self-references. The article itself is poorly written promotional material written by User:Pommarsmit, who seems to indicate on his user page that he is in fact Rinaldo Walcott, the author of this book. (And on the page for Rinaldo Walcott, he has made edits that only Walcott himself could know, such as contracts signed for upcoming books.) This is promotional material of a non-notable book and should be deleted. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- obvious promotional piece. Some of this could possibly be merged to Rinaldo Walcott, if he is deemed notable enough to retain his article as well.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non notable as all criteria of WP:NBOOK are not met. Failing notability and apparent promotional article deletion is more appropriate. There are two references in the article; the first one is this source but sincerely I can't even find the name of the book in it. The second reference is the book cited to support the book again, that's WP:CIRCULAR reference and confirmation of non-notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank W. Burr[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor, fails WP:NPOL, only sources are obituary and article about a scholarship he got when he was a kid. Rusf10 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NEXIST, notability is not defined by sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr. Norton is totally misguided in his argument to keep this article. A reference to a young person getting a scholarship is totally not up to standards for GNG, nor is a local county paper obituary. In fact, the current level of coverage is below the level we would expect to see for routine coverage for a mayor of a place with a little under 50,000 people. This article clearly falls short of the notability standards we have established for articles on mayors. Especialy mayors of places which in reality are a small community within a large spawling urban conglomeration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing, since your !vote hasn't analyzed the alternatives to deletion, and we already know given the early discussion that a potential merge target exists. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - RAN I suggest you rethink your "rationale" because it doesn't make a whole lotta sense. Burr does not meet the terms of #1 and #2 in WP:NPOL because he never obtained international recognition or even significant press. As for #3, it emphasizes that being an elected official "does not guarantee notability". We can try to go the "passes WP:GNG" route and fair no better; the context of the sources, which are extremely important to read, are one obituary and a few passing mentions that get it no closer to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that he lived a very humdrum life. Szzuk (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue or keep This discussion is only about notability, which in this context with more than one merge target is not a deletion argument. A quick look at the article I see New York Times articles from 1925 and 1972, which is a reliable source. There is some merit to a merge argument, but without an editor wanting to do the work, it would be academic to discuss it. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read those two articles. The first (1925) mentions him as one of multiple kids who received scholarships at a young age. I don't see any notability at all here. The second (1972) is about a group of mayors who oppose a state transportation bond issue. In that article he is quoted because he serves as a spokesman for the group. The bond issue ending up failing in the election later that year. Not really any notability there either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue to discuss non-deletion notability is the talk page of the article, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As for the 1925 article, a quote is retained in the article. The quoted sentence contributes to the GNG metric for notability with one sentence of in-depth significant coverage. $15US in 1925 in $350US today. A future event (the bond later failing) is entirely irrelevant to the GNG metric. Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct venue, the article should be deleted because the man doesn't have enough notability for an article. As per GNG, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, 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" "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." In other words, he was not the subject of those NY Times articles. And the amount of money of the scholarship is irrelevant. In 2017, a $350 scholarship is nothing.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the amount of money is irrelevant, why did you go on to post your math? You want the math to prove that it is irrelevant, but you are using the claim of irrelevance to deflect criticism of your math. Your math is that 350=0. Your same math is turning significant coverage of one sentence = 0 significant coverage. And since you just got done reading GNG, look again and you will see, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

And yes, this is the wrong venue, since with a suitable redirect target, your non-notability argument is not an argument for deletion. See WP:IGNORINGATD as well as the policy WP:ATD. A deletion argument would have to explain why we can't merge or redirect, which you've not attempted because we already know that we can do a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, I am curious, how many times have you claimed AFD is the "wrong venue", and the nominator or closing admin actually closed it as such?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you are curious, but I sense that your interest is in drawing attention to yourself. Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, she actually asked a really great question that you can't answer. Perhaps you are bringing up this argument in the "wrong venue" because no admin is backing your claim.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating I would prefer a straight answer if you are at all capable of doing so. I don't know how I'm drawing attention to myself when the question is about your rationale and requires your response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So first you were "curious", and now my response is "required". You can't even maintain the same viewpoint from one post to the next.

This discussion is about you, because it is you who is trolling, including both the posts here and on User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 10#Recent edits's talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a nice guy, but not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not clear GNG just his existence gets namechecked in articles that aren't about him, so the high school scholarship and the transportation bond and the Fishers Island community land trust and his grandson's wedding announcement aren't helping at all — literally the only source here that's actually about him to the degree necessary to assist GNG is the obituary. But everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere would always get obituaried in the local media after he died, so that isn't enough in and of itself — to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, what needs to be demonstrated is that he's significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places, by virtue of garnering more and/or wider coverage than would merely be expected to exist for all mayors. But none of the sourcing here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Kieliszek[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL notability. Mayor of town of about 40,000 is not notable. Only sources are local newspaper and article about police shooting incident which she did not have involvement in (and is not even mentioned). Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete THe local sources just are not enough to show notability. Nothing about Teaneck gives the mayor default notability, and the sources do not rise above routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the nom is eager to delete articles about New Jersey mayors, but she/he should take the time to read each article before nominating it. Maybe being mayor of Teaneck is not per se sufficient to make a person notable, but being the first woman to serve as mayor, and the attendant publicity, usually is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first woman mayor Teaneck (not the country, not the state) is not notable. If it were then we would have articles for the first female mayor of every city in the world.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. I didn't write that being the first woman mayor of Teaneck made her notable. I wrote that the attendant publicity made her notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the first female mayor of every small town that receives a write up in the local press is notable...so all of them then...Szzuk (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a moronic argument. See WP:ALLORNOTHING. (And when did The New York Times become "the local press"?) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are calling me a moron. Which is abusive. Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. I called your argument moronic. When I call somebody a moron, there's no doubt about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is rude - WP:UNCIVIL. Szzuk (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument can file a complaint against me at WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not know what you mean by "attendant publicity". Yes, the New York Times is a well known newspaper around the world, but it does have a local section. If you notice at the top of the referenced article, it says "N.Y./Region".--Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where should they have put it? On the "International/World" page, with news from Paris, London, and Jerusalem? Get off your high horse and be realistic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You completely missed the point. The New York Times has international coverage, national coverage, and local/regional coverage. The local coverage is much less notable than the others.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you completely miss the concept of notability. News isn't notable, and news coverage isn't more or less "notable" depending where in the newspaper it appears (except the gossip and op-ed pages). On Wikipedia, subjects of articles are notable, and that has to do with coverage by reliable sources. Being covered in The New York Times is as good as it gets in the United States in terms of the press; it's the newspaper of record. And like all newspapers that are more than one page, they cover national news in the "National" section, world news in the "International" section, and yes, local news in the "Metro" section.— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not inherit notability from the newspaper that publishes an article. Not everything the Times publishes is notable. If they do a story on a high school football game in the sports section, that does not make the quarterback in that game notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must never have read The New York Times to make a remark like that. Trust me, if they reported on a high school football game, it would be a notable game—if for no other reason than the fact that The New York Times wrote about it. (You really ought to quit instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you jumped into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with you! You obviously think the New York Times = "The word of God". If the NYT was such an infallible source, we wouldn't have this article: New York Times controversies. But I'm not even trying to make that point, I just saying that it is possible that a obituary doesn't give notability. GNG says you need significant coverage. Why didn't they write articles on her while she still was alive??? Your bias here is obvious and I don't really need to keep responding to personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing reliability with infallibility, they are not synonyms. What makes a news source reliable is that they acknowledge and correct mistakes. The GNG makes no mention of any obituary exclusion rule. --RAN (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the obituary is unreliable (although the NYT sometimes is and that is a topic for another discussion), I was just frustrated with his attitude and condescending tone. To answer your question, the guideline is "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." I'd have to believe that there would be significant coverage of the person while he or she was still alive in order to be notable. Very few people gain notability upon their death. There are plenty of obituaries written about non-notable people.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that she lived a very humdrum life. Szzuk (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the excellent points already made by RAN and Malik Shabazz. Aside from being the first female mayor of a major NYC suburb, Kieliszek and her town were the subjects of regional and national attention in the aftermath of the Phillip Pannell shooting incident. On a side note, I guarantee she lived a much less "humdrum life" than any of us on here. Scanlan (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She became mayor several months after the shooting. What role did she have in the incident?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Malik Shabazz and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The article is well developed, with enough reliable third party coverage to confirm wp:notability. Poeticbent talk 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article and those about her in other sources all address her notability. See these details about her being selected deliberately as mayor in the wake of the Pannell shooting in the book Color Lines by Mike Kelly. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, they chose her to be mayor as someone who would not be controversial (ie. somebody that everybody likes). How does that make her notable? I will ask again, what role did she have in the shooting incident or even the investigation of the incident?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, in addition to broad coverage in newspapers, she's also a major subject in a book. Rusf10, as an editor who is an utter non-contributor (the overwhelming majority of your last 500+ edits are all related to deletionism), it's hard to take your evaluations of sources seriously, as you have no evident ability to identify sources the way editors who contribute to this encyclopedia do. If you had performed your obligations under WP:BEFORE -- as you have apparently never done -- you would have found these ample sources and either accepted that the article met the notability standard or you would have added the sources you had found to the article. That you have refused to do so and have failed to distinguish between notable and non-notable articles only undermines your credibility. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What undermines your credibility is you can't answer my question. She is not a major subject of that book, she gets a few mentions (that is 11, in a 500+ page book).--Rusf10 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rusf10, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Poeticbent talk 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, nominator stated, "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason:..."Eleanor Kieliszek". However, no AfD or other notice was posted on the article, and when the nominator withdrew, no notice was posted on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. The AFD notice has been posted on the article since the beginning. The sole reason I withdrew the first nomination was because of objections to bundling the articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the nominator's statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, (emphasis removed), "Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here." GNG has no definition for "local source". Further, the nom understands that there is a suitable redirect target, which means that notability is not a rationale for deletion, yet the nomination ignores the policy WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't take my quote out of context, that was a blanket statement on all of the articles, not specifically this one. Local sources are expected to cover towns events, mayors, etc. that would be important to the local community but has no national or international significance. Third, a close look at these sources reveals that most are obituaries. Even the most unnotable people still have obituaries.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement at the previous AfD had another sentence, (emphasis not included) "Lack of sources is not the issue, its notability. Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here." How have I mistaken the context when you've nominated four of those five articles for deletion, and redirected the fifth with three sources?

Your claim that the topic has no national or international significance is not sourced with evidence. Whether you are right or you are wrong, it is not a GNG concept.

As for obituaries, GNG is fine with obituaries, especially those in the NYT, which are generally considered strong evidence of notability. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She really doesn't seem to pass as easily as some here may think, but I think she does pass. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Just to recap, the following are the sources we have in the artilce: 1. Obituary 2. An article in the town newspaper 3. an obituary, this time from the funeral home 4. marriage records 5. A historical document from the local library 6. An article written for the local college magazine 7. A NYT article about a shooting that doesn't even mention Eleanore Kieliszek And for all the talk we had about the New York Times above, I can't actually find a New York Times obituary for Eleanore Kieliszek, so I don't know why it was assumed she had one. Of the articles I can find in the New York Times, none of them have more than a passing mention or a few quotes from Eleanore Kieliszek. So the whole is the NYT a local source or not argument is actually irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lizette Parker[edit]

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

fails notability WP:NPOL, only reliable sources are obituaries in local newspaper. Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - First African woman mayor of a sizeable municipality well researched and added to by other editors, why can people just nominate articles for deletion just because they feel like it? It is the same swat team of deletionists backing each otbers arguements from article to article, you can see that here from the list of Mayors of Teaneck on to the actial mayors' pages. It is extremely time consuming to keep answering to these people who have total free range to keep nominatng things for deletion until the cows come home.Masterknighted (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

she was first African-american mayor of the county, not the country, not even the state, not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Teanech is not a "sizable municipality" it is one of hundreds of mid-sized communities in New Jersey and in the greater New York City area. We would need indepth coverage to show notability, which is lacking here. At least the article does not say she was the first "African-American mayor" of Teaneck, it says she was the first "African-American woman mayor" of Teaneck. Nor does it assert she was the first African-American who was a mayor in Bergen County, New Jersey, no there also the first African-American woman mayor. Mia Love being the first African-American woman mayor in the state of Utah for example (I list her because she is the only holder of a state-wide title of this type) might be enough for notability, but Parker's claim is not. For the record, since Mrs. Love is a member of congress, her previous service as mayor and as the first African-American elected official in all of Utah County are not material to her being notable. She is also one of a short list of people who received enough coverage as a congressional candidate that she was clearly notable, even after her first race that she lost. In the case of Teaneck with the inordinate amount of people on the list of people from Teaneck, it really does feel like there has been an unjustified campaign to create articles on people from that community which undermines the broad, world-wide coverage nature of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firsts are for the Guinness Book of World Records, WP:Notability only requires that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Maybe they get that coverage for being the first of something, maybe not, but we do not have articles only on the first, or biggest, or the most. --RAN (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument totally ignores the fact that we require above routine coveage for mayors to be notable, especially of places with less than 50,000 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POL is for people that do not meet the GNG requirement but deserve an article, she meets the GNG standard. --RAN (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person in politics who fails NPOL could always still claim to pass GNG anyway, if "a couple of pieces of purely local coverage exist" were all it took to exempt them from having to pass NPOL just because they had "passed GNG" instead. We would have to keep an article about every single mayor of anywhere, every single city or town councillor anywhere, every single school board trustee anywhere, every single non-winning candidate for any office anywhere, and on and so forth, if "a few pieces of local media coverage exist" was in and of itself enough to hand them a GNG pass despite failing NPOL. But we don't: the rule is that if they don't pass NPOL, then they have to be demonstrated as significantly more notable than the norm for their level of prominence (significantly more notable than most other mayors, significantly more notable than most other non-winning political candidates, etc.) before they actually clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the coverage is routine. The only article on her election is a local article from the Bergen paper which almost certainly would run an article on someone being elected no matter who they were. Her election was not even enough to cause coverage in New Jersey wide papers, let alone other papers in the metro-area she was in. On the other hand, there is a little more coverage of her death, but this is the type of straight news coverage that comes when a public office holder dies in office, and is still not enough to cause an article on her to avoid the not news rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is coverage, that is what defines notability. I really do not know what "routine" coverage is, or what the converse would be of "extraordinary coverage". The Ghits are large including New York television and New York newspapers. Titles include "Lizette Parker, groundbreaking mayor of Teaneck, dies at 44" and "History-making N.J mayor remembered at funeral". --RAN (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all coverage is created equal when it comes to passing WP:GNG — there are certain kinds of coverage that absolutely any mayor of any town or city always receives in their local media: election-night "who won" summaries, obituaries, things in the city getting named after them after their death, and on and so forth. When it comes to mayors, the difference between "routine" coverage that cannot support notability and "extraordinary" coverage that can support notability is this: does the coverage just represent exactly what any mayor of anywhere could always show, or is it going above and beyond what any mayor of anywhere could always show? Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage is coverage" is wrong. The standard is significant coverage. If all coverage was equal, many high school quarterbacks or local police department spokesmen would become notable because they get mentioned often..... Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Parker was the first African-American woman mayor of a vicinity in Bergen County.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterknighted (talk • contribs) 19:25, 09 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable political office is not an inclusion freebie that automatically makes a person more notable than all of her non-minority predecessors in the same position. If a town isn't large enough that its mayors would all automatically qualify for articles because mayor, then neither her gender nor her racial background make her a special case in the absence of nationalized coverage about the distinction. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.theroot.com/1st-female-african-american-mayor-in-bergen-county-nj-1790855103/amp

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete John Lambert argues the case well. Claims to notability are insufficient. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Teaneck is noted for its racial diversity and diversity of its public officials. On a side note one of the vicinity's most noted residents is Ahmed Zayat owner of one of history's most famous multi-cultural horses tbe Egyptian Jewish triple crown winner American Pharoah. Take a look at the list of many notable people who have called Teaneck home and see that it is a unique town whose diversity is worth noting.Masterknighted (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that she lived a very humdrum life. Szzuk (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N#Article content does not determine notability and WP:N#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom is mistaken, unless one considers the New York Post[1], WPIX [2], The Root[3], and WABC-TV [4]—which carried a report from the Associated Press—"local newspaper[s]". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being local, all these sources (and all except one in the article) are basically obituaries. You'd think she'd get some coverage while she was still alive.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're either misinformed or (more likely) lying. The Root is national, and the Associated Press is an international wire service. And New York City media doesn't routinely cover small-town New Jersey news, so whether the New York media is "local" is questionable. Face it, you're wrong about this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk

/_Stalk 00:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't call me a liar. FACT #1: All of your sources are nothing more than obituaries. FACT #2: The Root may be national, but not well-known, besides they wrote little more than a few sentences. FACT #3: The AP article refers to her as "a 44-year-old New Jersey mayor" in the opening sentence, hardly sounds notable to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has sufficient sources. GNG includes local sources and hum-drum sources. Unscintillating (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, routine coverage is coverage, and run-of-the-mill coverage is coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a part you often get wrong. It's not a question of coverage, it's a question of significant coverage. All coverage isn't equal. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely having a job and run of the mill coverage doesn't pass GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Parker is the first female African-American mayor of ANY community in New Jersey's most populous county, Bergen County. That's an achievement that was rightly honored/noted by the media and included in any list of African-American or New Jersey firsts. She justifiably deserves to be recognized here on Wikipedia as well, as her place in history is no less important than the first Muslim, Jewish, or female individuals to become mayor in Teaneck or Bergen County. Scanlan (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is where I strongly disagree. Notability should not be determined by race or gender (or both). She is the first African-American mayor of a county (in a town that doesn't even directly elect the mayor). As I and others stated before, she is neither the first female nor first African-american mayor in county (and certainly not in the state). Can somebody please tell me who the first african-american female mayor in New Jersey was? I ask this because I honestly don't know and I doubt we have an article on her (we should and she certainly would be more notable).--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being "first" isn't as notable as we try to make it sound sometimes. Who was the first mayor over 6 feet tall? Or the first one under 150 pounds? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is none of our business why reliable sources cover a subject. We only require, at WP:GNG, that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Why they cover a topic is their business. --RAN (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that you have asked the question, as far as I can see from the search engine results that what comes up is Lizette Parker being mentioned. It seems that no one has deemed this statistic important enough to list; she just might have been the first black woman mayor of any sizeable municipality in the Garden State but of course we would need a source to clearly state that.Masterknighted (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is already covered by 4 sources in the lede. --RAN (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources help establish believe that she was the first African American woman mayor of a city in Bergen County but not the state in its totalityMasterknighted (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Teaneck is not large enough that its mayors would be automatically notable just for being mayors, and being a place's first woman or first African-American (or first African-American woman) mayor is not an automatic notability boost either. If she'd been the first African-American women to serve as a mayor anywhere in the entire United States, then there'd be a notability case — but if she's merely the first in her own city or county, then that's not a notability freebie in the absence of adequate reliable source coverage. But the sourcing here isn't demonstrating that she's more notable than the norm, either — it comprises just one verification of the initial election results, some obituaries and one article about a piece of municipal infrastructure being named after her following her death — sources which are no different than any mayor of anywhere could always show. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a mayor of a city of just 39K needs to be shown as significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other cities of 39K — but that's not what these sources are demonstrating. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another moronic argument. Nobody has suggested giving her a "freebie". She satisfies the GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single mayor of anywhere would always clear GNG if all you had to do was show a couple of pieces of local coverage — yet Wikipedia does not consider all mayors to be automatically notable just for being mayors per se. The key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not "coverage of her exists", because coverage always exists of all mayors — it's "significantly more coverage of her exists than most other mayors could also show". Which is not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nor is there a "deletion freebie": this post indicates as per WP:NEXIST that it doesn't try to assess notability; and the post ignores potential merge targets. Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no population requirement in the GNG. --RAN (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said there was a population requirement in the GNG per se. But what there is, is a rule that there are certain classes of people who cannot be deemed to pass GNG just because a smattering of purely local coverage of them exists in their local media. Owners of independent non-chain local retail stores and restaurants would clear GNG if all you had to do was show a few pieces of local coverage; every mayor and every city councillor in any no-horse village (and non-winning candidates for those positions, too) would clear GNG if all you had to do was show a few pieces of local coverage; high school football players would clear GNG if all you had to do was show a few pieces of local coverage; presidents of church bake sale committees would clear GNG if all you had to do was show a few pieces of local coverage; and even I would clear GNG if all you had to do was show a few pieces of local coverage. If a person does not pass any of our subject-specific inclusion tests, but instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then what's required to actually get them into Wikipedia is significantly more media coverage than their equivalents in every other city could also show, demonstrating that they're significantly more notable than the norm for thelr level of prominence. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments. WP:NPOL does not say that the coverage for local politicians needs to be international or national, just significant. WP:AUD is a criteria for WP:NORG, not WP:NPOL. There will of course be very notable political figures who don't receive national coverage. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:56, 16 December 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) Winged Blades^Godric 04:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey[edit]

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

Renominating for deletion as WP:listcruft. List of mayors of a town of about 40,000 fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey closed less than an hour ago as keep, the WP:GNG concerns articles, not lists, and there is no mention of 40,000 anywhere in the GNG. If Teaneck, New Jersey article can have a list of mayors and it is too large, it gets its own standalone list. --RAN (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- So ask yourself, "What is the use of a list of 36 names, of which 9 have articles?" Would a reader do an analysis of the country of origin of the mayors? Or take the mean and standard deviation of terms of office? I doubt it. It's not like this is a list of governors or presidents. The list is there for the fun of the person who thought it up ... or to provide amusement for the folks who want to delete it. If you wanted to know who was the mayor in 1913, you'd want to know what he or she did. The name alone does you absolutely no good. And no one bothered to fill in the blanks in six years. Half of the table is unreferenced, so it's original research. Rhadow (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Half of the table is unreferenced" is incorrect, the entire list is referenced in the opening paragraph. The other references are supplemental. "What is the use of a list", I cannot read minds, so I do not know why people want articles on sports statistics, movies that I will never watch, or 1,500 years of popes or 2,000 years of Egyptian pharaohs. --RAN (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RAN -- I dispute neither the accuracy of the list, nor the love that the editor put into its creation. I doubt its usefulness for the reasons described before. Think like Kant. Would WP be improved by the inclusion of 19,000 similar articles for every municipality in the United States? As a matter of wikilawyering, the primary basis for the article -- the town's own website, the library -- is not an independent source. It is a primary source. The government is not an infallible source, as the last year has shown us. If NJ.com (the Star-Ledger) had reprinted it, then it would be legit.

Imagine how many articles there would be if we had one for every movie. ... Oh, wait we do. There must be over 50,000 articles out of the 500,000 films in existence. I have never watched all of them or read all the articles, so the articles are useless cruft to me. --RAN (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are other lists in WP that are unlikely to be of use either. I am on a tear to dump articles about (probably living) cricket players about whom we don't even know their first names.

If you want some real work and New Jersey of interest to you, investigate the extent of school segregation in New Jersey schools that results from the state's division into 678 school districts. There is plenty of press on the topic and it can be confirmed using a secondary source, the National Center for Education Statistics.

Don't stop contributing or defending the articles you believe in. Rhadow (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your discounting of government sources, suggesting that somehow a government source becomes legit just because a newspaper reprints the information. A strict application of WP:PRIMARY does not serve this project (although its general advice is correct). Professional researchers are trained to evaluate the legitimacy of any source, recognizing that reliability is a scale, not black and white. Even within a larger primary source, reliability might vary. A list of current municipal officials may only exist on the city's website. Under normal circumstances, there is no reason to suspect its accuracy (while the biographies of each member might be less reliable) (and while somehow, a newspaper using that information makes it correct). In this case, the information comes from the town library - and should be considered a secondary source, rather than a primary source. --Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Just to clarify, are you saying the article should be deleted (or improved)?--Rusf10 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on Teaneck, New Jersey. There is absolutely no reason to have this as a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (A merge can be acceptable as well because of the value of the information). While it is not up to us to determine the usefulness of an article, but whether (in this case) the list contains notable and verifiable information (however, I think the information is valuable). --Enos733 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Hello Enos733 -- You surrender all power when you say, "it is not up to us to determine the usefulness of an article." You are leaving it all up to to the city editor of a newspaper with inches to fill and to a book publisher who needs to make her quota. I disagree with you in a most collegial way. Rhadow (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a part of the topic Teaneck, so deletion would be destructive of the ability of editors to maintain the encyclopedic balance between the two articles. It is a utility vehicle that as a redirect target protects individual articles on mayors from anti-notability arguments, so supports WP:PRESERVE. In spite of the claim of the nomination that this is listcruft, this is not a list, and WP:listcruft itself says that articles on x are preferred to articles on List of x. One way this article could be expanded is to explain how mayors in Teaneck are selected and their duties. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this most certainly is a list, despite the fact the article is not named "list of". If you'd like to know how the mayor is selected, we already have this article: Township (New Jersey).--Rusf10 (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is derived from the comment of the nomination that cites WP:Listcruft. As per that reference, when the title of the article is not "List of x", any list is a section of the article on x. Unscintillating (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. An article can still be a list without being titled as such — not everybody knows that our actual naming convention for lists is "List of X" rather than just "X", so whether any given article is a list or not is determined by whether its content is a list or not, not whether or not it has the word "list" in its title. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the title nor the content of this article are a list, and your claim regarding what people know and don't know remains unclear without a Wikilink to a reference. Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is a list, and the fact that the title isn't "List of..." is irrelevant to the matter of what the content is. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Listcruft states, "In general, a 'list of X' stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article."

I also reviewed WP:SAL. "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body." Unscintillating (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly all of which describes precisely what's in this article, and exactly none of which suggests that the lack of the words "list of" in its title somehow magically makes it not a list even though its content is fully consistent with what that description says about what defines a list. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's no constructive, positive impact or contribution from the deletion of this type of valuable content. None whatsoever. The deletions here lack a long-term vision in favor of short-term deletions wins. Unfortunately, these are the types of potential deletions that expose deep (but fixable) flaws in Wikipedia, a project meant to be in depth and all encompassing, including the arenas of politics and local history. No professional historian, journalist, or political analyst would ever advocate the removal of this type of information or the officeholders in it. Teaneck and its mayors have always been politically influential in North Jersey, the larger New York City metro area, and New Jersey as a whole. This list, and the mayors that have unfortunately been listed for deletion, are no exception.Scanlan (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, Wikipedia is not meant to be "all-encompassing" — that would mean we would have to keep articles about non-winning candidates for political office too, which we don't. Rather, we have actual standards for distinguishing notable from non-notable article topics. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Scanlan claims that, "Teaneck and its mayors have always been politically influential in ... the larger New York City metro area.]].^{[original research?]} If this were so, then the list should be merged with New York metropolitan area. The bigger question is why one would write about the Teaneck mayor, who under the Faulkner Act, is a council person who chairs meetings, and has no other distinct authority (like veto). The mayor is not, strictly, speaking, an elected position. He or she is an elected council person, but elected as mayor by the rest of the council. Rhadow (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faulkner was a mayor from a town now 39K. The Faulkner Act was originally enacted in 1950 and significantly amended in 1981. If you read our article, you will see that the first person that we now describe as a mayor of Teaneck was selected with a 1798 act. As to your perhaps unintended suggestion to expand to Local government of Teaneck, that could work, as there is already a section on local government in Township of Teaneck. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless somebody's got a more compelling deletion rationale. The fact that Teaneck's mayors would not be automatically presumed notable per WP:NPOL means we shouldn't have standalone biographical articles about most of them — although it's important to remember that some of them went on to serve in the New Jersey state legislature and/or the United States Congress, so some of the articles ain't going anywhere. But the question of whether the people in the list would qualify for their own individual biographies or not has no bearing on whether a list of their names should exist or not. Maybe it shouldn't, and I'm certainly willing to listen to and consider in good faith a deletion argument that keeps its eye on what we're actually talking about — but NPOL is about whether individual people in politics do or don't qualify for standalone BLPs, and has nothing to say about lists of officeholders one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the original nomination (which I withdrew), I mentioned NPOL which applies to individual mayors. You are correct, it would not apply to the list. I have not mentioned it in this discussion. My reasoning here is that the article is an unnecessary list that fails GNG. Mayors of a town this size are normally not a notable topic. Overall, the mayors of this town have not received significant coverage (keeping in mind you need more than a handful of articles to cover over 100 years of history). I also believe WP:Indiscriminate applies here as well.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your rationale for deletion was WP:listcruft which is a personal essay about things that the person that wrote it dislikes, it is not policy concerning lists, and if you had actually read it, you would have seen that it, in fact, validates the concept of breaking out lists from articles: "Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles — University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum." So "Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey" should exist because we have an article "Teaneck, New Jersey" based on the essay WP:listcruft. Like the Bible, you have to read it, if you are going to quote it. --RAN (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the bible, somehow two people read the same thing and come up with totally different interpretations. What it say is "n general, a "list of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." In this case x is actually "Mayors of Teaneck" because despite the title of the article being the same, it is actually a list of mayors of Teaneck. I know you and another editor now added a opening paragraph to try and claim it is not a list but when I nominated the article it contained nothing but a list (and the one paragraph really doesn't change anything). Mayors of Teaneck is not a legitimate topic. If we go with your interpretation, since Teaneck is a legit topic, we can now have articles such as "list of street names in Teaneck", "list of bus stops in Teaneck", "list of everyone who's ever lived in Teaneck", and so on.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ruffins[edit]

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

Recording engineer associated with a number of notable music recordings, but no evidence of notability themselves so fails WP:GNG. Only reference is for a list of credits for recordings she has worked on. Jellyman (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:28, 12 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Highfield[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Simione001 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did he have any appearances for FC Jokerit during 2002 as that club was professional at the time meaning he would meet the notable guidelines? I'm having trouble finding out if he actually played for them though. NZFC^(talk) 20:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the contemporary media reports suggest he was playing in the reserve team. Couldn't tell you categorically whether he played first team or not. Hack (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not many of the articles are publicly available, most likely due to changes in media ownership since the articles were published. Hack (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly meets WP:NFOOTY, but difficult to confirm, lack of available online sources is irritating but I am happy this player passes GNG based on the references in the article. the titles of sources 1 and 2 indicate to me coverage of a non-routine nature, whilst this referenced in the article, is a significant article discussing the career of and speaking with the player himself. The remainder look to me like more routine coverage from their titles, but it seems clear that this player has received a degree of significant coverage over an extended period of time throughout his career. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced by arguments for WP:NFOOTBALL (not supported by reliable sources, but especially because Finland was only relatively pro recently IIRC) or WP:GNG (sources don't quite cut the mustard, sorry). Giant Snowman 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Coverage is in passing or routine. Does not meet WP:NFOOTY and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 16:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the above two keep !votes state above subject has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first five sources in the article are all local. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 18:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: New Zealand doesn't have national daily newspapers. The New Zealand Herald (Auckland), The Press (Christchurch) and The Dominion Post (Wellington) are the three most widely circulated dailies in the country. Hack (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hack: I'm a New Zealander and The Dominion Post—news found at stuff.co.nz—barely circulates outside the lower North Island; The Press—circulation of roughly 80,000—having a similar issue. In NZ the online version of The New Zealand Herald is the 9th most popular website in the country, just behind stuff.co.nz (#8), despite circulating only much in the upper North Island. Radio New Zealand, Stuff, and some other websites online are national news outlets. Also, daily newspapers aren't the only thing that matters. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what point people are trying to make about "local news". It seems obvious from the sources noted (Dominion Post, NZ Herald, The Press, Stuff.co.nz, etc) that whilst the circulation of the sources may be described as regional at best, the coverage the player has received has been undeniably national, since there are sources published on both main islands included here. Not only has the coverage been widespread geographically across NZ, it also seems from the timing of the sources noted in the article, that it has been sustained over a number of years. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Despite there being no indication of WP:NFOOTY and him probably failing it from a first look, there is a whole article about him on stuff.co.nz ([5]). The Press is local as it covers Canterbury, where he plays, but I count them as half a source and those three full articles make it to the threshold even not considering articles in The Dominion Post and The New Zealand Herald, which are not local to Highfield's area as Fenix down correctly notes (silly me). Furthermore, the spread out coverage and having many whole articles written about him strengthens my !vote. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 18:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough references have been identified for WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am happy that the GNG has been met with suitable, in depth sources, including the one linked to above by Fenix Down, which have a reasonable enough circulation. These do enough to convince me of notability here - I doubt he'll ever be massively notable but there are many sportspeople who would pass SNG but about whom we will be unlikely to ever find the level of substantive sourcing provided here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequately sourced to pass WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 16 December 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 references have been presented during this discussion which show notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funk Masters of Wrestling[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only sources are primary or from wrestling databases with no criteria for inclusion (and therefore do not establish notability). Nikki♥311 13:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT states is our guideline for this. I believe the number of tag team championships won by the group would qualify under #3. - Galatz ^Talk 14:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if they'd held notable championships in more than one major promotion to satisfy "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I think arguing that holding a few championships in an independent promotion satisfies "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" is stretching. Nikki♥311 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't really see an issue. More sourcing is needed, but it's hardly a classic reason for deletion. <ref>http://fmwwrestling.us/FMWHistory2.html</ref>, <ref>https://prowrestlingradio.com/terry-funk-pro-wrestling-radio-interview/</ref>, <ref>http://www.puroresucentral.com/FMWReview-FunkMasters.html</ref> Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FMWwrestling is primary. Puroresucentral is not a proven reliable source. You still haven't proven how it meets WP:GNG. It needs to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You have to prove they exist not just say the article needs them. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Nikki♥311 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG per nominator. The issues: This article has ZERO references towards notability. There are 26 references listed, from two different sources, that are primary. The 19 references from the source "Cagematch" do not contain any mention of the subject that I saw but do reference "Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling" or the names of individual "team members". I read over half way through the FMW history2 reference before finding passing mention of the subject. While multiple primary reliable sources may be used to support content, an article relying on one source does not advance claims of notability. This becomes more of a problem when the source of the references are close to, or invested in, the subject. This is compounded exponentially when the subject involves a WP:BLP or information about living persons. The lead there states, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.", with the added, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". The policy Wikipedia:No original research deals with Primary, secondary and tertiary sources stating among other things "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". How is notability established? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This will also ensure compliance with the policies on no original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, remembering: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:ENT and WP:NSPORT are guidelines. This page in a nutshell on both guidelines state: "...is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so the "subject" fails both of these guidelines, especially by not complying with more than one relevant policy. There is one more "issue" I ran across. Of the 26 references, some of them duplicates, the article is written from the single FMWHistory2 source because all the others generally just show matches with individual names (not including the subject) so there appears to be a lot of synthesis. All of this leads me to consider that there is serious instances of citation overkill to falsely present notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:18, 12 December 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 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naked As We Came[edit]

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

Article about a film, which just states and single-sources that it existed without suggesting anything about it that would actually satisfy WP:NFILM. As always, a film doesn't automatically get an article just because it cites one review in one publication -- notability because Oscars can be single-sourced at first (but still requires more sources than that before the article can be deemed good), but notability just because it's been reviewed requires several reviews and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page was created just 5 days before this AfD nomination. Let's give its creator more of a chance to make something of the page instead of BITEing off his/her head with an instant AfD. — Gpc62 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time that a page has existed is not relevant to its keepability or deletability. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, what is relevant is WP:BEFORE to find (even if unused coverage) to show meeting WP:NF per WP:NEXIST. 11:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cited New York Times review plus others from significant sources (Rotten Tomatoes has the Daily News, Village Voice, and PopMatters) [6] is enough to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yet another nomination based solely on article quality. The four professional reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes are sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Easily found full reviews in New York Times and Huff Post and Wicked Local and Hollywood Reporterand Pop Matters are quite moconvincing. Sorry, but was WP:BEFORE followed? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as an ugly little improvable stub which has the coverage to meet WP:NF. (sorry Bearcat). Since being poorly written or sourced is not the criteria and WP:NEXIST is, let's fix it, not toss it out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:05, 11 December 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 Nicholls State Colonels#Men's tennis. Sandstein 22:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Tennis Complex[edit]

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

Either with the plural colonels, or singular colonel (which is the official name as per college sources), can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Nicholls_State_Colonels#Men.27s_tennis. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a NCAA Division I facility. It's the highest level of college athletics and it's been established many times over that these facilities qualify as notable. The article has four independent references and five overall, which is more than enough. In addition, two of the references are media outlets. This is a definite keep. User:Annieann1 (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Just because it's a Division I facility, doesn't necessarily make it notable. Merge to the main athletics article is the best option here. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has multiple media references, 21 independent references, and 22 references overall. There are more references available, but 22 references are enough to justify notability. Maybe not every Division I venue qualifies, but this one does especially with all of the references. This Division I tennis venue is notable and needs to be kept. User:Spatms (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are we keeping it standalone or are we merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep/Stand-alone~~ User:Spatms (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep/Stand-alone~~ User:Annieann1 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nicholls State Colonels#Men's tennis. References seem to be WP:ROUTINE. What little info there is can easily fit in a section of another article. Lizard (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nicholls State Colonels#Men's tennis. While at a glance there does appear to be a spree of references, a closer inspection shows this to be a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT - the vast majority of them are about the teams, and matches played at the complex, not the complex itself. There may well be enough out there for this Division I facility to be spun-out later, but for now, this should be merged and tagged as {{R with possibilities}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saldamosaurus[edit]

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

A dubious taxon, named in a journal of dubious reliability (Dinologia) should not be on Wikipedia, as it violates our core principle of verifiability. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to communicate with the editor, but there has been no response. The taxon (like several others from the same editor) is flaky, and the source is useless. I couldn't find anything better, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sourcing appears to exist. Editor appears to have a bit of a sideline in these; see also Saraikimasoom, Saldamosauridae. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article itself says that this stegosaurus belongs to a dubious genus. A citation is given in the main text, but no references appear at the end of the article. Is this article a hoax? I am sure it would not be too surprising to find it is. Vorbee (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs a reliable source. And {{Taxonomy/Saldamosauridae}} should get deleted along with Saldamosauridae. Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From http://www.dinochecker.com/dinosaurs/NATRONASAURUS, and similar articles at Sinopeltosaurus, Amargastegos, Andhrasaurus, etc, it does not appear to be a hoax, and Galton&Carpenter would be Galton, Peter M. & Carpenter, Kenneth, 2016, "The plated dinosaur Stegosaurus longispinus Gilmore, 1914 (Dinosauria: Ornithischia; Upper Jurassic, western USA), type species of Alcovasaurus n. gen.", Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen 279(2): 185-208. Suggest that the Ulansky-related articles require a broader examination/determination. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Galton and Carpenter article says that the taxons named by Ulansky do not conform to the ICZN, thus making this taxon invalid. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Base on one article (which isn't cited in this article) more or less,[7], not determined to be a taxon later by others. Hardly any mention of this taxon later.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines if the name is invalid (laughably described in the ref above as "serial-self-publishing shenanigans"). (Question to the experts: Is a redirect feasible to another validly-named page? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diving in Guam[edit]

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

This article has grown and contracted over its long life. With this title, it can only be a tourist guide -- which is promotional by definition. The article on Guam does not mention diving as a substantial sports or economic activity. This article is a candidate for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- has no sources, probably some original research.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article comes across as a tourist advertisement, and WP: PROMOTION applies to this article. Vorbee (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caelan Tiongson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 9 December 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 Doctor Steel. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People of Earth (album)[edit]

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

Self-published album (actually mp3 download, no physical album was released), did not chart, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HindWiki^Connect 16:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Steel, as suggested in the inconclusive merge discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Steel. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RoboRocks[edit]

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

It’s not clear that this topic as ever notable. However the external link to the roborocks site is now dead, and other web links are to a vacuum cleaner product of the same name. It appears the Competition us now defunct and has left no trace.

Delete - a search for sources yielded nothing. No sign of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources missing in article. BEFORE yields a Xiaomi vacuum cleaner and a robotics team [8] but little sign of the circa 2006 competition (well, OK, there was - [9], and [10]). If a post-2000 robotics competition leaves no internet footprint - then nope - it doesn't pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Carter (Musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG also WP:NMUSICIAN. HindWiki^Connect 15:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 15:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 15:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are very few references to him online, and those which do exist only appear to consider him notable as the brother of someone famous. WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Too soon (if ever). – Athaenara ✉ 18:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all hype, no substance as of yet. Apparing in a dancing show is not enough to make one notable, maybe winning Dancing With the Stars Ireland, but not being a contestant alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet meet any criterion in WP:MUSICBIO, and I have found no coverage that makes him meet WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 03:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that appearing on the most watched television programme in Ireland IS enough to make someone notable. The nomination for deletion, feels a little xenophobic, because Ireland is a small country their notable people are deemed inadequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockie16 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jake Carter (Musician) has been updated to include his chart success, validating his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockie16 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sockie16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Sockie16: the iTunes chart is not considered an important chart per WP:BADCHARTS. Social media such as Twitter and YouTube are not generally considered reliable sources, particularly if they are the subject's own social media pages, and The Sun is also deemed a poor quality source as a tabloid newspaper. So the only good source in the article at present is the Belfast Telegraph. There's nothing xenophobic about the nomination, it's the lack of good quality independent sources that are the problem. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:Sources have been updated to include Irish Independent, Irish Examiner and rte.ie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockie16 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek Nizam-e-Mustafa[edit]

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

Everyone knows about the political party Pakistan National Alliance, who uses similar term. But there is nothing in my searches for this group. It looks like that it is local one with no real activities. Maybe we should redirect? Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (reason) 21:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) 21:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Nom cites possible confusion with a notable party. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V, as Störm points out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jhulelal Mandir Nadiad[edit]

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

No references. The importance of this temple is not indicated either. It seem local temple with interest of local people. Should be deleted and merged with Nadiad artice instead. Nizil (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources to warrant merging into Nadiad. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessMaker[edit]

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

non notable. Utterly trivial awards, and press releass as sources DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks quality independent sources. Sources given are news releases and self-published items.174.119.49.210 (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant hits online, except for blogs and press releases: no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not seeing evidence of notability for this as a product or for its company under this or its previous name. Nor are the listed awards notable in themselves. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of mandis in Agra[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with majority of the entries being red links. Entries having their own articles lack references. MT Train^Discuss 12:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and since most of the links are red-links WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR lacks references and are red links.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited in the article either don't mention him, are short bios, are primary source interviews, or make trivial mention. Unable to locate significant secondary sources (or musical achievements) to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Logistics[edit]

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

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue. Concern was: Start up company. No claims to importance or significance. Fails to meet notability for airlines per WP:NTRAN Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG/CORPDEPTH. I found another company with a similar name that seemed notable, but it seems like a different one. It merged with another airline in China? South Nashua (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is a Translation of main Article in Portuguese https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Logistics, seems an important emergent Cargo Company in country. To remember, there are lot of aviation articles with just 1 airplane --92.76.86.106 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable small cargo company. Also appears promotional in nature. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam from anything but corporate spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sciences in the Qur'an[edit]

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

An admirable essay, but simply beyond Wikipedia's limits on original research. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references refer to the scientific concepts involved, not the article's claims, quite clearly WP:SYNTH. It reads like an internet argument, or essay, overtly promotional and possibly in violation of WP:NPOV. I agree that it is more like an essay than encyclopedic content. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoah. The grandmother of all essay-type article attempts, and chock-full of apologetics for literal Qur'an interpretation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Science in the medieval Islamic world, as Uanfala has done for Sciences in The Qur'an (with an upper-case "T"). I agree with the comments here and on the writer's talk page: it's a well-written essay, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that mostly as a hassle-free alternative to deletion. Sure, the target article is close enough, but readers looking for content about sciences in the Qur'an (as opposed to sciences in the post-Qur'anic Islamic world) will not find any relevant content there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another similar article would be Islamic attitudes towards science. —Paleo Neonate – 02:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous original research. I don't see the benefit in redirecting or any content worth salvaging. Unfortunately the creator seems to have just fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this article was originally created at Sciences in The Qur'an (uppercase t). Haywi copied the content to Sciences in the Qur'an (lowercase t) after the original page was turned into a redirect by the nominator. I've merged the two page's histories to maintain the attribution. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsalvageable essay, pure OR and synthesis against policy WP:NOR. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the author. With all due respect to the contributors to this discussion, and thanking them for sparing their time. I accept my ignorance in WP regulations that the article is being an original essay, but I think with a twist i.e. not exactly to the definition . It touches on an important issue which concerns many intellectuals and average readers alike ,by balancing the issues of faith and science without delving into controversial religious or worshipping issues, nor being partial to either. It is a mini-encyclopedia of various sciences in a non-jargon simple language accessible to people with little or no knowledge of the subject who make the majority of the WP readers.--Haywi (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I suspect that others may have written on this topic, but I don't see any references to their work there. So I agree that this looks to be all original research. A transwiki to Wikiversity is quite a possibility. Otherwise this article needs to start from scratch reporting what others have said. It is also a non-neutral point of view, but that problem is minor compared to the other. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Deomonstrates a complete misunderstanding of concepts like "quantum biology"; scientifically nonsensical statements like "Trifact of life are; water, chemicals and energy"; selective interpretation like "three barriers that protect the fetus" identifying three anatomical barriers, but neglecting to mention several others that make it add up to a larger number. Also rife with links to disambiguation pages, so much so that if this were not deleted, I would move it to draft space until those were repaired. bd2412 T 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dear 'bd2412', but is the article less worthy than showing WP readers your many tea shirts!? on your user page... have a good day --Haywi (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as sad as it will be to see all that work go, it's definitely WP:OR. Makes me glad I didn't approve the page in WP:NPP. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons pointed out by Alpha3031 A ntv (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything really encyclopedic, certainly fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As BD2412 points out, it also fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smmurphy, you are a walking encyclopedia...I had a look at your contributions...how do you manage to find time to eat ,drink and sleep...or do you have ghost writers? Shakespeare did have--Haywi (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm haunted by many ghosts, I do wish they would write for me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly oblige --Haywi (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clear WP:OR. It's not the only problem but sufficient for removal. gidonb (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Raymond[edit]

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

Is being the first Pakistani principal of St Patrick's High School, Karachi sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO? The sources look pretty weak, and I couldn't find any better. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage in RS except few namechecking and apparently no notable career. --Saqib (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being any sort of principal of a high school is not in and of itself enough for notability. We would need actual indepth coverage from reliable sources to show notability, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Sources might exists but can't find any currently. He is known for this school so we should redirect it. Störm (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanwin Beachwear[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find reliable sources to verify notability of this firm and brand. Although the page is not overly promotional, the creator's account seems to have been set up with the purpose of promoting the company, as several images on related pages (Swimsuit, History of swimwear, Bermuda shorts and Trunks (clothing)) have been replaced by images showing Sanwin's products. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's nothing I could find on Google to demonstrate notability for this brand, and the potential COI highlighted by the nominator is a red flag with regard to agenda-pushing. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and no indication of notability - fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Burkhart[edit]

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

Again, a tragic incident, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Proposed deletion was contested because "he certainly was [notable] to thousands in the alpine ski world who like me, would like recognition and rememberence." Remembrance isn't within the scope of Wikipedia (see above), and I can't see what this article recognizes apart from the tragedy of his death. There aren't any major accomplishments even on youth level, as Max Burkhart wasn't part of the German national squad. There also isn't a BBC obit as stated by another editor, just a short notice. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agreed, a tragic story, but sadly the only news hits relate to Burkhart's death, so this fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically every time a 17-year-old dies it is tragic, and there are always some people who want to memorialize the person who died, but the place to do that is in paid obituaries and websites made to memorialize people, not on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet anything at WP:NSPORT, including taking part in a top-level competition and/or tournament. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for his death, which is not enough for an article here. Edwardx (talk) 00:03, 15 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deletion cannot stand due to discussion being tainted by sockpuppetry. Overturning to keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie B's Hot Chicken[edit]

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

very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists . DGG ( talk ) 11:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable fails WP:CORP--Rusf10 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly has depth of coverage per WP:COMPANY, including national coverage in USA Today, Time magazine, Washington Post and Sports Illustrated, and a lot of regional coverage.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted WP:COMPANY in highlighted quotes down below, along with WP:Deletion policy's rebuttal of this. What's your take on it? SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that there seems to be a big divide between just saying "all these articles are press releases or derived from press kits" versus how the articles actually read. I agree with North America's statement below that the sources are not being properly analyzed. I'm not sure what would make you think, for example, that the article in Washington Post is simply a list of restaurants in Nashville. It's an article about four restaurants in Nashville with a quarter of the article being about the author's visit to Hattie B's. Just about every article about hot chicken discusses Hattie B's - like, for instance, the article in Time, a national publication. I could go article by article over the 18 sources being used on the page if you like; overall, I think the criteria for notability is satisfied because there are numerous articles about the restaurant, from local and national publications, either about how it was founded, or its place in the hot chicken or Nashville restaurant scene. It is regularly noted as a major food attraction in Tennessee. I don't think questions about the veracity of the sources stand up. I mean, how is any restaurant going to be written about? People are going to write about its history and its food. That doesn't make it promotional or propoganda.--Bernie44 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Editors need to exhibit some judgement about a four-store establishment. Sure, they got coverage, but that's looking at the rule, not the reality. Perhaps we need to look at GNG generally for restaurant chains. We argue three times a week about this. Rhadow (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but I'm not sure the fact that it is a chain or not really matters. The restaurant is listed as a main attraction in Nashville, so I think it's notability hinges on the main restaurant, and not the other locations. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that most of the coverage included in this article is local, and I'm including the Atlanta newspaper in this group because it deals with WP:ROUTINE news of a restaurant opening. It looks like the USA Today piece is likely not WP:INDEPENDENT, so not counting that one either. However, that does leave coverage by the Washington Post, National Geographic, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I can not conceive these as being local coverage, they appear to be independent and not part of a promotional campaign by/for the topic, and therefore the article appears to meet WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the nonlocal coverage amounts to mentions.such as in a general travel article or a list of the 75 top fried chicken restaurants DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that the Washington Post article [11] is a mere mention. I also don't think that the National Geographic reference [12] is a mere mention, but that is more open to interpretation. It certainly isn't a "list of 75 best chicken shacks". Same with the Pittsburg reference [13], which directly mentions said "top 75 chicken places" but gives more in-depth information about the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, four whole paragraphs in the WaPo Travel section. It was 157 words in National Geographic Traveler not National Geographic.

If you agree that a lot of the coverage is "local and routine", then this is a WP:Deletion policy grounds of deletion. My vote below along with others detail the need for deletion here since all of the sources are local and routine, not a sign in a business article. Trampton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough here to satisfy the notability standards, and that is what counts. Concerns about "yellow pages spam spreading" aside, we really need to take a good, hard look at the growing "GNG is not enough" attitude about things such as this. If there is coverage, it should count regardless of whether the subject is a 500 year old painting, a 50 year old pilot or a 5 year old restaurant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's enough to satisfy WP:GNG, then there shouldn't be any concerns of "yellow pages spam spreading" since this is what the comments later on including the latest give, so that shows a strong sense there is yellow pages spam here. So how can the article be improved? Trampton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (3:47 video). It's unclear if the delete !voters have analyzed sources presented in the discussion, which demonstrate notability rather clearly. The nomination itself has has been sufficiently countered relative to WP:AUD, as per coverage in USA Today, Sports Illustrated, The Washington Post, Time, and the book source I provided above. Furthermore, the number of stores that exist has nothing to do with notability at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article can be improved, then show us someone can, because it's been another week and no one but FloridaArmy edited it and he didn't change anything. The editors have analyzed the sources and I even analyzed those sources above, and they're clearcut spam. Trampton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although WP:AUD is mentioned above, I'll quote exactly what that same notability lists as its content: Except press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly and other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

WP:Notability also states: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Deletion is based on an article violating enough policy concerns and our WP:Deletion policy says: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia....Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The comments above show no regard to weighing our policy against this specific promotionalism and why this article should be an except against millions of other companies. For example, the first Keep vote states WP:COMPANY as being sufficient yet my highlighted examples here are exactly from that cited page. Another comment above states "satisfy the notability standards, and that is what counts" and yet, WP:Notability as stated there, says: It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see....WP:What Wikipedia is not. Policy is what matters here, not a guideline, and policy supersedes as the lead judgement of content.

Sources analysis for example, as the sources have only been casually listed above and no context was given about them:

1 is a general list about 1 location's restaurants (WP:NOT says: Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like)
2 is the same but in a different publication
3 is highly similar, but with a different approach
4 is a travel section guide, see above for the same WP:NOT quote)
5 is a local business publication for said location
6 is a local television for said location
7 is another example, in a different publication
8 is another followed example, but this time from the company's own POV
9 is a general business announcement based on a press release (See my first highlight)
10 is a travel guide in a different publication

If this is the best we have, different published travel guides with a different travel guide-minded approach, this shows an immediate violation of WP:Not guide as quoted above since this is clearly a public relations operation for the business itself. WP:NOT ADVOCATE, a pillar policy, applies here given it says: Wikipedia is not for Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.. I also want to be clear that the latest sources that were posted are the same exact sources present in the article now, see 21:39, 3 December 2017. WP:Articles for deletion specifically says evaluation is based on the current article's contents and whether it's changed while and after it was nominated. This article has not changed and to offer the same sources present at the time it was nominated, offers nothing new as to why the article is any different at all. Also, as for attempts to improve this article, that happened once here, 00:16, 25 November 2017, before the article was nominated, and therefore the same article is unchanged now. Further, the author states here, 15:31, 27 November 27, 2017, that WP:Notability is satisfied and yet I've quoted all of the relevant parts disputing this, above with my vote. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond, point by point.

1. You are right, Wikipedia is not the place to re-create a travel guide. I see no attempt to create a travel guide with this article, it is about a tourist attraction in Nashville. One place. In this case your set theory is incorrect, in that just because A is fully a member of B does not mean B is fully a member of A. There is not wikipedia policy that says travel guides can not be used as a reliable source, it only says that Wikipedia should not become a travel guide.

2. Would be the same point as above, except the Time article can not possibly be construed as a travel guide, it is a news piece about a culinary trend, and talks about the subject's role in that trend.

3. I have nothing to add, this is a casual mention, and adds little to the understanding of the subject except that they opened a location in Birmingham, which could probably easily be found in one of the other references.

4. I have said previously I'm not convinced about the independence of the USA Today source. I am concerned by the "Special to USA Today". I do not follow food reviews, so I have no idea if Larry Olmsted is generally recognized as an expert food reviewer or not.

5. I agree with your assessment. I tend to dis-trust these types of publications regarding their objectiveness

6. True, does not count towards notability, but can be considered a reliable source and mined for information about the topic.

7. My opinion of this source is similar to #4.

8. This is a staff writer, so I would treat this source as I do #6.

9. Yup.

10. See my comment #1.

There are 8 more references in the article. 6 of them are strictly local coverage, or coverage in publications I would not deem reliable. However, that leave the National Geographic Traveler, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as additional independent, non-local sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Non notable promotional article and corporate spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –At the time of posting this; this user has total 22 edits in all. 5 to userspace; 17 edits all delete !vote to various AfDs with canned comment –Ammarpad (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I'm new around here, someone told me about Wikipedia and what articles worked like. That doesn't discount my valid views and every user started at one point or another. In fact, I used the search bars above on the article and all it gave me were spammy sources. What does matter here is that this is a community where anyone can comment, including me. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't see anything that says new editors who are longtime users are excluded on joining and commenting and I for one agree with the spammy concerns on this article. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I saw the listing here and clicked on the article before reading these comments. I was surely going to !vote "keep" because it is referenced with "Time", "Sports Illustrated", "USA Today", "Washington Post", and "National Geographic" among others, so that is a wrap right? I came back here, read the "keep" !vote comment of "Northamerica1000", with all the reasoning why the article should remain, and it was still a wrap. Then, I read the comments of SwisterTwister, and reread the article. OMG! It is the best advertising article Wikipedia could present. Just read (or reread) the fantastic advertising "Reception" section. I want some of that chicken. Take a look at the guideline concerning spam, the lack of neutrality, and the rationale (such as great national advertising) for any "keep" !votes are buried beneath several policies and guidelines that mandate deletion. This article is so good I still think I would like to try the chicken, but that is probably a red flag also. Otr500 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mild concerns of advertising or puffery tems we managed them by cleaning up not deletion. Blatant we use G11 and that's not the case here. The reference used do indeed show meeting WP:GNG, we don't say we must see 50 sources as per as this is subjective. But the sources cited and the ones given by North America above are enough to show it is recognized by others and merit an article. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are at least two sources that are intellectually independent and the topic therefore meets the criteria for establishing notability, namely this USAToday article and this Sports Illustrated article. Most of the other references fail WP:ORGIND as they rely on interviews and/or company-provided information. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if only chicken joints could win awards for their chicken like pie shops for their pies..... Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable indwpendent sources. Remove any advertorial content. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a new editor here but I,be been a longtime reader including of Articles for Deletion to know "substantial coverage, remove any advertorial content" isn't going to buy you a lot when SamHolt6's analysis is persuasive, what do you think? And who is going to remove the advertorial content? There's a lot of questions and not enough answers. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what FloridaArmy said, substantial coverage with reliable independent sources, USAToday article and Sports Illustrated article. Remove any advertorial content. Vistadan (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed the obvious spam "Reception" section. Businesses shouldn't have reception sections, and topics that do, like films and books, use aggregation sites, not cherry-picked quotes. Rest of article still appears to have little purpose other than to promote the business. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also that FloridaArmy seems to be aiming for an edit war, reverting my removal of spam without discussion or even an edit summary. And that's after saying "Remove any advertorial content"! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Passes GNG but fails WP:NCORP and most importantly WP:CORPDEPTH. I am of the opinion that attempts by two editors to clean the article of promotional material, coupled with SwisterTwister's points, preclude this article from WP:ATD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NCORP. How?. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP falls under the umbrella of WP:NOTE, which states that even if subjects have reliable sources concerning them, this does not by definition prove their encyclopedic value. My main issue with the article is the failure of 4 main points of WP:CORPDEPTH (which is itself a subsection of NCORP), with those failed points being routine restaurant reviews, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, and quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. If the article in questions sources are judged against these criteria, the outcome does no favors for the article as it exists, and this is in addition to the general idea (as posited by other editors involved in this Afd) that just because a subject has sources that meet notability criteria, this does not ensure inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also note that WP:JUSTA is an essay and not policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later, but I don't think appearances in national publications could be considered a routine restaurant review. Uh, what kind of review then is *not* routine? I would recommend that we remove the word "routine" from the criteria, since it appears all reviews are therefore routine, since it isn't limited to highly localized coverage, as used to be the norm. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6. As I am planning to reply, you've already got good reply. You already admit the sources meet GNG but you're relying on plain subjective side of another argument, and in the process both contradicting yourself. Everybody can look at any sources provided and say they are "mere" routine... That's is as simple as writing routine, that's why. Also I know JUSTA is an essay and it already served the purpose of linking. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a contradiction. To determine if an article passes WP:GNG, I use the following test as proscribed by our GNG guideline; Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Hence I view this article as passing GNG. However, this passing does not preclude these secondary sources from being judged against WP:NCORP, and as I have stated above, the sourcing of this article fails to meet several specific NCORP criteria. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having reread the references and taking into account what SamHolt6 said above, both reviews I quoted as meeting the criteria for establishing notability are, in reality, routine restaurant reviews and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH. In my opinion, a review is routine if the publication/journalist regularly posts reviews of restaurants. The Sports Illustrated reference was written by Andy Staples and his description states he is developing an encyclopedic index of the best food in every college town along the way and the publication tags article like these as "Eats". Similarly, the USA Today reference was written by Larry Olmsted, whose bio on Forbes shows he is a Travel Writer and states him to be the restaurant columnist for USAToday.com. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a 4-restaurant chain is rather insignificant to give it the benefit of the doubt. Beyond, just a promotional article with a human-interest-story spin, as in:

"He learned the restaurant business working for his father, Gene Bishop, a longtime executive with Alabama restaurant chain Morrison's Cafeteria". Etc.

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. on grounds of promotion alone and this is a strong WP:Deletion policy and I actually looked around before, and all I could find is [22] and that's a promotional mention, [23] another, here same strong tones and same pattern on [24] and [25]. It's also worth mentioning that there hasn't been any signs of actual intentions on changing this and the contributor's hastiness to removing the tag isn't what fixes the article, only either improving it or deleting when it couldn't, and it seems it couldn't be improved in the end especially on grounds of FloridaArmy's edit warring so Delete. No encyclopedia benefit and not an asset to this advert-free encyclopedia. Trampton (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dini Daniel[edit]

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

Non notable actress. All the references are from non reliable sources (the Hindu reference is a poem by somebody who could be the same person, though contributing a poem in a newspaper doesn't impart any notability). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR in the absence of reliable sources. Jupitus Smart 07:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps some regional sources may exist that may convince me to change my !vote. My current search shows no reliable sources that can help push the subject over WP:GNG OR WP:NACTOR. Lourdes 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some more links with rearranged it's links and I think there are enough notability now.Njaan Parayunnu (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Njaan Parayunnu, all sources you've added are unreliable. One is a video indexing site, the other two seem PR puff sites. Would you have any mainstream media source that has covered the subject? Warmly, Lourdes 14:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, I have added 3 links too, [26]-[27]-[28] and the following web links are enough to consider reliable sources to proof notability of an actor or a film-[29] and [30].Njaan Parayunnu (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Njaan. I would suggest that you should give a quick read to Reliable sources, a guideline that would assist you in understanding how sources can be classified as reliable. Let me quickly analyze your four sources:

https://www.m3db.com/artists/69941 : Has no significant content on the subject. Anyway, is made to look like IMDB; unreliable.
http://www.mathrubhumi.com/nri/america/news/cpr-class-1.1925836 : I ran this through Google Translate. This is an article about a low-key heart/medical class conducted. Has no mention of the subject; she appears in the picture.
http://keralatimes.com/?p=8180 : This is a link trap website. The home page of the website contains the following words: "android lollipop android smartphone Arsenal Boob Blast ..." and some hundred more words like that.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8878820/ : IMDB sources are unreliable for supporting significance.

If you have any regional sources from reliable sources, please do list them. But first, please do go through WP:RS. Ask me for any assistance in understanding the guideline. Warmly, Lourdes 07:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fasterfox[edit]

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

This article is in direct violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST as it was meant to serve as the free web page of its subject, Fasterfox. The Mozilla Addons page lists this Wikipedia article as the support website of the author. But I said "was" because the author, Rsccman was blocked three years ago, exactly for doing this.

The subject itself fails to establish its notability; of the four sources given in the article, only two briefly mention it. Other than that, the subject has no impact. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: this is not what Wikipedia is for. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs are from company, 2 incidental mentions, and a how-to article, none of which meets the threshold of significant, and a search turned up no in depth coverage elsewhere.Dialectric (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Titan: Smoke Signal of Fight Back[edit]

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

Article about a web series, whose only stated claim of notability is that it exists and whose only cited source is its own self-published website. As always, every web series does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA, but requires reliable source coverage about it in media independent of itself for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This Japanese anime is a popular one and in time, the article will expand and citation will improve. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just say something was popular — anybody could simply say that about anything, because it's a generic and unquantifiable adjective. We need reliable sources that actually support concrete evidence of popularity before we can accept it as notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources no evidence of notability. At least I cannot find any reliable source referring to this series and thought of AfDing it too. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks notability, with no reliable sources, and because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion nor a crystal ball to support "This Japanese anime is a popular one and in time, the article will expand and citation will improve.". The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia does not include "create the article and one day it might be referenced with reliable sources" but in fact states " If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Please refer to one of the the "Five Pillars" regarding neutrality, verifiability, citing sources, and identifying reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources put forward by GRuban were convincingly rebutted by Dom Kaos and LuckyLouie. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fraser (psychic)[edit]

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

From the minimal material in article, it seems subject is not WP:Noteable RobP (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. "Find sources" finds sources. Lowell Sun; Orlando Sentinel; Fox 29 Philadelphia; DC Life Magazine; WPRI Rhode Island. It's enough. --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a brief article that does not say much, other than that this man has appeared on some programmes. Appearance on programmes is surely not enough to establish notability. Vorbee (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the sources quoted above shows the depth of coverage required to demonstrate general notability: interviews with the subject of the article cannot be considered to be news coverage. Definitely fails WP:ENTERTAINER. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear advertisement and directory page. 4 out of 7 reference links are dead. Of the three that are left, the first is an advertisement for a benefit that includes, Tickets are $40 plus cash bar, with a phone number for reservations. A blog talk radio reference, has the title Free Readings with Psychic Medium Matt Fraser!. At the bottom of the article it states Call His Office for Details. www.SimplyPsychic.com. The last reference is an Amazon link to buying the book or getting it on Kindle cheaper. There is just not enough notability to pass GNG. Otr500 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I examined the sources helpfully provided by GRuban and found the majority are interviews that promote an upcoming event or appearance by Fraser, and so fall under WP:ROUTINE, i.e. "planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Swart[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, such this interview [31] or commentary by the subject in the media: [32]. Created by Special:Contributions/Lea210 whose other contributions are centered on Upwork, the company that the subject's business merged with. Not notable as a CEO of a nn company; present career in venture capital appears to be nn as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROMO. Sourcing in article while great in number is very low in quality. A BEFORE doesn't yield enough to convince of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gvaji[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Only citation is a primary source. Google search turned up more primary sources but no independent coverage. Citobun (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not Linkedin. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:13, 9 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Sanchez (video games)[edit]

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

Just like with Fran Mirabella III, while they were involved with IGN there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing in article doesn't satisfy GNG, and a BEFORE doesn't seem to yield much (after filtering out other people with the same name).Icewhiz (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Besso[edit]

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

While a working actress, certainly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when your roles are things like "3rd women on couch" or "reporter" you are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. Art is a CV and source list is IMDB and websites. Agricola44 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Kaur (Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, no secondary coverage by reliable sources, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 16:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 21:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE As per nom. Fails WP:NFF. Domdeparis (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see these two sources, not sure if it is enough to keep the article though 1 and 2 -sarvajna (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I added some more reliable sources. HindWiki^Connect 00:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I have removed 2 of HWiki's sources as non-RS and another one as one on a completely diff. subject.The rem. one just trivially mentions the name of the film.Definitely ~~not now~~ "TOO SOON".Winged Blades^Godric 13:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Since "not now" is about RFA being premature, perhaps you meant "TOO SOON" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks for the note:)Winged Blades^Godric 18:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS:

WP:INDAFD: Hard Kaur movie Ajit Rajpal director Deana Uppal

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

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

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

Draftify for a short while. In looking, I found coverage in The American Bazaar to support that in State Times, as well as confirmation of filming in Punjabimeo, and music production in Bollywood Masala . To clarify my thought here, it appears that filming has begun and it "has" some coverage, WP:NFF is inapplicable (sorry Bovineboy2008)... but I do agree that lacking more, the article is not quite ready (yet) for mainspace. Since Bollywood Galiyara tells us its release is pending, if more then comes forward, I encourage its return and improvement. 10:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Manchester, New Hampshire[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft, such lists are not encyclopedic. Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn- Although I disagree with it, I see there is a standard for these types of articles WP:TIMELINE, so I choose to withdraw.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And move to William Brawley (disambiguation) Sandstein 22:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Brawley[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS disambiguation page with one clear primary topic by historical importance. William H. Brawley was a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. federal judge, both federal offices. The other subject, Billy Brawley (who generally does not appear to be referred to as "William") is a Scottish footballer who played without distinction for several seasons from 1999 to 2007, and apparently has not been heard from since. I would delete the disambiguation page and redirect to the Congressman/judge, with a hatnote to the footballer. bd2412 T 21:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is also a Bill Brawley, elected to the North Carolina House, and "Big Bill" Brawley is a character in the film The Bruiser. Even with those, I think William Brawley should lead directly to the article currently at William H. Brawley, either through a redirect as proposed, or by moving that article. If kept, the dab page should move to William Brawley (disambiguation) or perhaps Bill Brawley (disambiguation). Update, actually the current North Carolina politician is linked as William Brawley (North Carolina politician) in many articles. older ≠ wiser 10:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment William H. Brawley should be kept under this name, because this is how he is refered to. I don't have an opinion on weather William Brawley should be a redirect to him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now has 4 entries, so definitely shouldn't be deleted, but no objection to move to William Brawley (disambiguation). Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with moving to William Brawley (disambiguation), given the expansion. bd2412 T 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that there are no independent reliable sources has not been rebutted. WP:V is not negotiable. Sandstein 22:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totara LMS[edit]

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

References point to either the company's own work, social media, or link to awards that don't have intrinsic notability. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs additional external references (there are many). Still the product is the most widely used enterprise port of Moodle and as such it has Wikipedia value. Pxtreme75 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pxtreme75, and rename as "Totara Learn". I haven't addressed the need for sources independent of the company's site, but I have updated some of the info on the page. Note that since September the software has been rebranded as "Totara Learn". Presumably we should rename the page (keeping the edit history together?) and make Totara LMS a redirect. — Gpc62 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've backed out the keep close here to get more policy based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows no reliable sources so doing a few searches. This despite being easy significant coverage is doubly bad: A press release and according to Google News a blog. I'm not so sure Moodle News is a blog though, given its name and layout. The rest of Moodle News sources found in this search are the same. This is also a press release. There are only press releases in this search and passing mentions also dominated the one before. Thus, delete. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Imgrund[edit]

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

A personal bio. No sign that WP:GNG or any SNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for the article is written in an editorial manner as in LinkedIn. Moreover, no references are cited. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of individual notability per WP:FILMMAKER and, as has already been mentioned, Wikipedia is not Linkedin. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really need to speed up the turn around time on getting rid of Linkedin articles posted on Wikipedia. Film editors even of the biggest films are rarely notable. It is directors and sometimes producers who are notable, not people with less controlling interest in the film creation. I know this ends up with more articles on actors than filmmakers, but actors are more well known and more in the public eye. To justify an article on Imgrund we would need to have quality sources showing substantial, reliable source 3rd party coverage of him, which we lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur de pierre[edit]

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

The only reference found [33] is a trivial mention. Not to be confused with The Stone Flower (1946 film). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of multiple indepth references to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public News[edit]

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

No references. A quick WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being unreferenced. This article is confusing as there is another newspaper called Public News (Houston). Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, when I tried searching for sources most of them pertained to the subject of Public News (Houston), that article should thus be moved over if this is closed as "delete". - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:08, 11 December 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific communism[edit]

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

The page has existed for ten years without having references. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So add sources. There have been several books written on the subject. --Michig (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and "article content does not determine notability", agree with Michig above, plenty of books cover this, here are a couple - Fundamentals of Scientific Communism and Scientific Communism. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Having no sources is not a reason to delete an article, especially when the subject is clearly notable. Benjamin5152414, please consider withdrawing this nomination, and please follow WP:BEFORE in the future. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Nelson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:NACTOR, fails WP:GNG also. Could not find reliable sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR per above. Since 2007 the article has been unreferenced and tagged since 2009. Except for the embedded listing the entire body of the article is the lead, Yvette Nelson is an American model, actress and singer. and She released her first CD, All for the Sake of Love, on February 14, 2000., in the "Discography" section. Mainly bit-part actress, often uncredited (7 out of 15) so has fleeting notability. Could not find reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG so is in violation of WP:BLP. She was married to Matthew Nelson but there is no notability by association. Official websites and/or IMDb can not be used as a sole means to reference a BLP article and certainly not as an "External link". (See comments below) --- Otr500 (talk)

Comments: I started my WP:BEFORE search looking over the article. There are no references and an "External link" apparently used as a source. The Tonight Show doesn't lend to notability so I looked at Lingerie Bowl (2005). The link is to Legends Cup (LFL). Subsection 2.2, for Lingerie Bowl II (2005) has two links: Los Angeles Temptation, with no mention of the subject and no section reference, and New York Euphoria with one external link for reference and tagged since 2009. I did not see the subject mentioned anywhere among the multitude of question marks for 2005 on either team. She was actually listed with "Chicago Bliss #1". If content is not referenced, and is not correct, it surely can be considered original research. Yvette was billed with Joe Mantegna in Inside 'NYPD Blue': A Decade on the Job (2002) and a guest co-host on The Best Damn Sports Show Period (TV Series). Trying to find reliable sources was evasive.This one looks good, but is a compilation from two "official" websites, and includes "Yvette used to tell anyone who would listen that one day she'd be a star.", "But the fame and recognition she worked so hard for proved to be an empty thing..." (so she turned to singing) and "...playing live with her band and on the never-ending quest for the perfect song and her "shot"". Her modeling did get her work with Fredericks's of Hollywood but that would just be an "eye candy" reference to go along with her official site stating "Her stunning visual appeal". As a person (or general reader) I would like to keep the article because she is hot but as an editor that is not a criteria. Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any sources other than subjects own website. I have to add that statements like "as a person I would like to keep this article because she is hot" are exactly the type of statments that give Wikipedia a bad name as dominated by the type of self-absorbed males who gave us the currently being exposed sexual harrassment crisis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan Chakraborty[edit]

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

Only passing mentions and non-notable sources. He writes for Forbes India so doing a WP:BEFORE was a bit tricky, but I didn't see much else. With terms like "A huge mass of youth in India considers Sayan to be their inspiration.", a COI editor becomes a concern. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable journalist among supposedly many other things. No coverage of the said person in reliable sources (not considering the articles he has written), and probably created by a COI editor whose only edits have been about the said person. Jupitus Smart 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Participant in a reality contest, but still at college and not notable yet. Written by a CoI creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi everyone, as i can see now that article looks fine, i have removed all promotional information Sumit 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitmpsd (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gustarvus Lightbourne Sports Complex[edit]

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

Whether we view this complex as a building or as an organization, I don't see the notability guidelines being met, nor do I see them being met under the general guidelines. The place definitely exists. It has own Facebook page and does receive mention in the Turks and Caicos press. But those mentions are merely in passing -- that the place is being used as a hurricane shelter, or as a site for voter registration, or the meeting point for a march. I found nothing of substance about the place itself. The article can't be converted into a redirect to the person it is named after, because that person doesn't have an article here. Conceivably, it might be made into a redirect to Providenciales (specifically, the section on tourist attractions). But even that is problematic. Not only does the Providenciales article not mention the place, it isn't even mentioned on the tourist site linked in that article (which can be seen at http://visittci.azurewebsites.net/providenciales/things-to-do/attractions ]. In all, deletion is the best option here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of deletion for the article is to brief and stubby; no notability or significance displayed. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brick deterioration[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO GMG ^talk 00:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a fit Wikipedia subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This belongs on a home improvement site, not here. I can picture Bob Vila doing a segment on this.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm kinda mixed on this, would you guys be mollified if the whole "To fix this.." parts were taken out? I feel the rest of the content has a home somewhere. And brick already seems bloated. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you take out all the instructional content, and take out all the content that already has a main article, I'm not entirely sure what you'd be left with, but it doesn't look like very much more than a few lines. As to Brick, yes, it's terribly bloated, but on the order of half or more of that article could probably be rightfully removed as original research, or rightfully spun off into a list of types of bricks. The same goes for some of the main articles on these individual sections. Damp (structural) has sported a split template for more than a year, and about half the article is about rising damp, which could probably be spun off into a stand alone article all its own.

Unfortunately, this is a pretty systemic problem when you get to some of our most generic (and likely most viewed) articles. But I don't think this article really solves any of that. At best, if rewritten to be encyclopedic, and to represent a worldwide perspective (which it's not totally clear it does), it seems like this would be an unnecessary fork for an article that itself needs fundamentally rewritten, rather than forked. GMG ^talk 13:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep an encyclopedic topic, which is mostly about what can go wrong. Not a how to fix it. 21:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International ice swimming association[edit]

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

Initially tagged as a CSD A7, but withdrawn as one of the sentences makes claim of significance (see founding section). However, there's no reliable sources to support, and the only "sources" that were there are the company's website. Also, doing a Google search only returns some other companies, some are related to International Winter Swimming Association, an entirely different company. The creator, Rbarkai, has a conflict of interest on this article, as his username resembles the founder, Ram Barkai. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and WP:RSSELF ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For some reason there are multiple links to the article within it and all around the writing is poor. Also not meeting WP:GNG, and further more, all three of the references are just different pages on the same website. This not only isn't encyclopedic content, but the information in this stub article (see WP:STUB) could be found all on the original website.Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The IISA is apparently pretty well known; for example the New York Times devotes several paragraphs to it in this article about ice swimming. There are other well-known reputable sources that refer to the association, so it's probably notable, but I'd like to see multiple instances of significant coverage about the association rather than the events it sponsors. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Google News brings up a lot of sources. But I do believe the article needs some major work.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On top of being poorly sourced, the article is shabbily written and doesn't conform to GNG. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't determined by the sourcing in the article but by the sources available. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SPA Ram Barkai has built a walled garden. Give him credit, though, he is an energetic self-promoter. The rival organization International Winter Swimming Association sponsored its first championship in 2000. Both are described in Winter swimming. Rhadow (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, move to International Ice Swimming Association and redirect to Winter swimming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 13 December 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. The consensus is that the sources present within the article are sufficient to establish notability. Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filippa Knutsson[edit]

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

Non notable person per sources. Fails WP:BLP. HindWiki^Connect 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 00:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Per sources"?! The sources at the time of submission to AFD indicated that Knutsson was a major businessperson and winner of a significant award (dating to 1772!) in her native country. She is the owner of a large company that has an existing Wikipedia article. I've added sources that indicate that her fame is widespread and more than establishes notability. Gamaliel (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is shabbily written. Although a famous designer, content on her article is stubby but notable. Hence, I suggest merging Filippa Knutsson with Filippa K (her brand). Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she's notable, we shouldn't merge and the article can be expanded. I agree with Gamaliel, clearly notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Megalibrarygirl. The article needs expansion not deletion. Lacypaperclip (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient sources for keep. Would be nice if someone can find date of birth, where from, etc. gidonb (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.theroot.com/1st-female-african-american-mayor-in-bergen-county-nj-1790855103/amp

[1]