Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 July	1 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Bahati

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights and no significant independent coverage. Appears to fail both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BAMMA#BAMMA_World_Middleweight_Championship per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 07:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is WP:BLP1E currently; all the references are to a single fight. I don't think the title is notable enough to justify a redirect to it. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MehRad Ghadir Zadeh

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gymnastics. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 08:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NSPORT, no other claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 2 August 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) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Braff

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

~~Although the subject passes~~ In addition to not actually passing WP:NHOCKEY, I was not able to locate any reliable in-depth independent sources that would indicate that Braff passes WP:GNG. Most everything available is trivial mentions, routine stats or announcements from the teams themselves, but nothing independent that focuses on Braff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG, and I'm also differing from the nom in that I'm failing to see where in an unheralded, ephemeral career he meets NHOCKEY either. Ravenswing 05:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression he passed by virtue of having played with the HC Eppan Pirates, who play in Italy's top ice hockey league, but I've just realized I overlooked WikiProject Hockey's list of leagues that actually count for that criterion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if we just anointed Every Country's Top League as notable, quite aside from the innate absurdity of the notion, you'd get some beer leaguers in Peru with guaranteed articles. Ravenswing 21:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was thinking and I was like uhhhhh well I guess WP Hockey knows what they're doing...glad to see I was wrong :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't he get notability from his time with the Basingstoke Bison (Criterion #4)? 194.28.127.53 (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What awards has he won? Yosemiter (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at criterion #4, you know that it's for a "all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star." Ravenswing 10:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(User:194.28.127.53 on a rotating IP) I seem to recall he was awarded 'something' by the league, as it was covered on our regional TV news (which is why I knew the name), but I can't find it at the moment, and Ice Hockey coverage in this country is poor at best, which is why I haven't placed a "keep". Will keep trying to dig for it. 194.28.127.54 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not listed on his Elite Prospects profile , I would doubt that it actually exists (typically listed under "Career Highlights). Those folks are pretty good at knowing about and listing any awards when they are announced. Yosemiter (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leagues award all manner of honors, down to "Community Service of the Week" and "Academic Rookie of the Month" plaudits. The bar for criterion #4 is set very high. Ravenswing 03:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding any non-routine sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not finding any significant coverage anywhere. Currently no listed references in article only a couple external links. Antonioatrylia (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure), no argument for deletion advanced (WP:SKCRIT#1). The nominator apparently intended to nominate the redirect at Melchior de Voguee, in violation of their topic ban. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior de Vogüé

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

It is the U diacritic that made User:Eubot turn it into "uee". WP:RFD#D5 patent nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je peut parler francais, comme une vache espanol. Malheurese, je ne peut pas ecrire, le clé sous-ci hongarien. J'suids anglais, j'habite hongrois, la treiye, mal a trop! Je peut traduire, mais une langue, non pas trois. J'em en fous. 23:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Not sure what the logic is of citing a redirect-deletion reason for an article, but this article is anything but patent nonsense. Any issues with the bot can be discussed in an entirely different forum. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:33, 31 July 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) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwel Paz

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

Unsourced BLP, fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. BangJan1999 22:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Warren

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

Insufficiently notable to meet gng. Delete and redirect to list of penthouse pets Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete & Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - No evidence of notability to warrant an article (and doesn't appear to meet PORNBIO either) so redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 11:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC) (Updated 13:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or Redirect: Not notable. Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom and per consensus practice on Penthouse Pets with negligible other credentials. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. — TheMagnificentist 09:19, 7 August 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) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking with Green Tea: Delicious Recipes with Just the Right Touch of Green Tea

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK notability. Most available sources are either not independent of the subject or are of questionable reliability. - Mr X 20:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 100s of such books available, not enough notable as per WP:NBOOK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisswill (talk • contribs) 22:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Mostly unreliable sources in article. Not a notable book. Antonioatrylia (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect, apparently Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flaggy Flag

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Let's not help the rebellion. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: vive la revolution! Umm... Delete per WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 19:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more words on fidget spinners in the article, either keep it up or merge it with the HI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.53 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably a good idea to salt. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly NN - might be plausible to smerge into Hello Internet. And yes, salting seems a good idea. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if kept, should be renamed to the fuller name, Flaggy Flaggy Flag Flag.Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Are... are you a subversive, going against the true flag, the nail and gear?! Shame on you! :P RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hello Internet. Philip Stevens (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Greg (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No redirect. Protect from recreation. Delete and protect the image too. Non-notable. No independent references. Pure fancruft. The original redirect was clearly made in good faith but it is unnecessary. The subsequent action turning it into an article seems to be deliberately vexatious. I find it deeply sad that Gray and Haran are out there working hard to make intelligent stuff to try to make the world less dumb and then some people come along and take their stuff and just use it as nothing more than yet another way to make the world dumber. This flag referendum thing was done as a way to help people learn and think about voting systems, and also about what makes a good flag, in an interesting and entertaining way. It was never meant to start an idiotic battle that spilled over into regularly vandalising Wikipedia for god knows how long. Sadly, some of the "Tims" have missed the point. They probably think that they are cleverer than the run of the mill Wikipedia vandals. I don't care if they are more intelligent. If they are then that just means that they should know better. Such behaviour is purely disruptive and it has to stop. If they don't care about Wikipedia then they should care that they risk making Gray and Haran, not to mention all the rest of the "Tims" who are not busily making a damn nuisance of themselves, look like a tribe of idiots, which, for the most part, they are not. Let them have their fun on Reddit, not here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 3 August 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) 20:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork (deadmau5 song)

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

Unlike other deadmau songs, "Clockwork" never charted so neglecting secondary coverage is not much of an option. All the sources provided and can be found through searches are not reliable outlets for secondary coverage. Thus, it fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source coverage found, no properly sourced content to merge anywhere else. Not really worth a redirect to the artist's discography article. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing that meets the WP:GNG, didn't chart, and there's basically no content present anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources are present. Antonioatrylia (talk) 22:58, 6 August 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) 20:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert difiore

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Not quite unsourced, but sources are not WP:RS by a long shot. Kleuske (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are unreliable and the article asserts no reason for its inclusion per WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 19:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO.-Umair Aj (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only references are unreliable including imdb and allmusic. Antonioatrylia (talk) 23:18, 6 August 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian William Miller

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

Biography of a person with a dubious and highly subjective notability claim ("the most beautiful man in the gay social scene of New York City", sez who?) and no strong reliable source coverage about him to support it. The references here are all either primary sources or glancing namechecks of his existence, except for one which completely fails to mention him at all but instead is here solely to support a completely tangential claim about the age of a company he worked for. There's simply nothing here that passes a notability criterion: nothing in the article body passes WP:NARTIST, and nothing in the sourcing satisfies WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sentence "the most beautiful man in the gay social scene of New York City" is taken from different sources:

- first source: The Gay Metropolis: The Landmark History of Gay Life in America by Charles Kaiser; Kaiser's background to ascertain his Curriculum is on his page here on Wikipedia.

- other sources: Glenway Wescott Personally: A Biography by Jerry Rosco

- Digressions on Some Poems by Frank O'Hara: A Memoir by Joe LeSueur

- A Heaven of Words: Last Journals, 1956–1984, by Glenway Wescott

- Intimate Companions: A Triography of George Platt Lynes, Paul Cadmus and Lincoln Kirstein, by David Leddick

- Gay Gotham: Art and Underground Culture in New York, by Donald Albrecht, ‎Stephen Vider

- Paul Cadmus: the male nude, by Justin Spring

I think above are enough to prove "the claim".

As for being only "primary source", other than the Papers at OAC, and BTW Papers have always been considered good sources, I provided other 5 sources, which are not primary:

- The Gay Metropolis: The Landmark History of Gay Life in America by Charles Kaiser

- "William H. Miller, Jr. Chair c. 1944". MoMA. Retrieved 30 July 2017. (I hope the MoMa website is considered a reliable source...)

- Leddick, David (2015). Intimate Companions: A Triography of George Platt Lynes, Paul Cadmus, Lincoln Kirstein, and Their Circle. Macmillan. Retrieved 30 July 2017.

- Sale. Sotheby's (Firm). 1982. p. 257. Retrieved 30 July 2017.

- Johnson, Una E. (1968). Paul Cadmus: Prints and Drawings, 1922-1967. Brooklyn Museum. p. 18. Retrieved 30 July 2017.

and they are only 5 since I did not want to repeat myself and I did not included 5 different sources of above.

therefore the claim of being not notable or relying on primary source does not stand.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a person was considered beautiful enough to model for artists is not proof that he was objectively the most beautiful — a statement that's completely unquantifiable, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Different people will have different opinions about who's the most beautiful member of any given group of people, and none of them can ever be objectively proven right or wrong. And on the matter of the sources, what you're missing is that they don't contain substantive content about him — all of the ones that aren't primary sources simply namecheck his existence on one or two pages without being about him to the degree needed to get over WP:GNG. And MoMA's own website is a primary source on the matter of its own holdings — the simple existence of one piece in one gallery is not an NARTIST pass in and of itself, so to get a Wikipedia article on that basis there would have to be evidence of media writing about the chair's presence in the MoMA collection, not just a directory entry on MoMA's own self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- American Design - Page 33 - https://books.google.it/books?isbn=087070740X, Russell Flinchum, ‎Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.) - 2008

- Objects of Design from The Museum of Modern Art, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=0870706969, Paola Antonelli, ‎Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.), ‎Harriet Schoenholz Bee - 2003

- The Ordinary as Objects of Desire: MoMA Looks Back at Everyday ..., www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/arts/design/05desi.html

- MoMA REVISITS WHAT 'GOOD DESIGN' WAS OVER 50 YEARS LATER, https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_387178.pdf, "printed textiles (1946), low-cost furniture (1948), and lighting (1950), ... William H. Miller, Jr., George Nakashima, and Davis J. Pratt; lamps by Greta Von Nessen .."

- The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=0195313917, Gerald W. R. Ward - 2008 - ‎Art, "1916–17; New York, Museum of Modern Art) and subsequently for many other ... art divide, for example the inflatable chair designed by William H. Miller (c. 1944 ..."

- What Was Good Design? MoMA's Message 1944-56 | DeTnk, www.detnk.com/node/3621, "Chair by William H. Miller c.1944 - Manufactured by Gallohur ... Exploring MoMA's legacy in the Good Design debate, 'What Was Good Design?"

- The Nature of Motion | DisegnoDaily, https://www.disegnodaily.com/article/the-nature-of-motion, "Lynn's chair was shown as part of The Nature of Motion, ... “Then I found a picture of a chair by William H. Miller, which is in MoMA's collection."

And these are only the first 7 hits about the Chair, exhibited more than once as an important piece of 1940s design.

You stated the claim of being "the most beautiful man" was unsourced, I proved the claim is not unsourced. Sure, we have all our opinions and perceptions, nevertheless Bill Miller is mention more than once in published books as the most beautiful man in NYC in the 1940s. He was a sought after model for many important artists, and his portraits are sold on auctions at high prices still today.

He was the lover of Alfred Kinsey, considered one of the most important researchers on Gender studies.

Last but not the least, he was also an inventor for the Navy... his invention did not survive the past of time, but still, it was something that he did other than being beautiful.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did my choice for the sources, but there are many hits if you google "Bill Miller" Gay New York (unfortunately Bill Miller is a very common name):

- The Gay Metropolis - The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kaiser-metropolis.html, "Three decades later, Merrick wrote The Lord Won't Mind, one of the first gay novels to .... Bill Miller is also famous among his contemporaries as one of the most ..."

- Student Research in Beinecke Collections | Beinecke Rare Book ..., beinecke.library.yale.edu/about/blogs/room.../student-research-beinecke-collections, "on the personal testimonials of gay men in the course of his research, including William "Bill" Miller, a gay model and artist living in New York."

- Bill Miller, musa gay di scrittori ed artisti - Queerblog, www.queerblog.it › Arte e cultura, "La bellezza gli bastò per conquistare la New York più intellettuale, la Parigi più sfavillante di ingegni e talenti."

- John Goodwin - Gay History Wiki, gayhistory.wikidot.com/john-goodwin, "Born John Blair Linn Goodwin February 25, 1912 in New York to a prominent .... Tennessee and Frank came, and Paul Cadmus and Bill Miller ..."

- Rachel Wilf Topics in Lesbian and Gay History Professor ... (PDF) - citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.603.4846&rep=rep1..., ‎"William “Bill” Miller was a gay model and artist who acted as a ... the Institute in Bloomington, and saw Kinsey during his visits to New York City."

- Kinseys Gay Entree | Advocate.com, www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/books/2010/05/25/kinseys-gay-entree, "When Kinsey came to New York, one thing that interested him was the social ... Bill Miller, the handsome model, sometimes joined the group."

- Search results for: Cadmus Paul, page 1 | Collections Search Center ..., collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=Cadmus+Paul&view=&date.slider..., "Artist: Paul Cadmus, born New York City 1904-died Weston, CT 1999. Medium: etching on ..... view Bill Miller [drawing] / (photographed by Peter A. Juley & Son."

- Paul Cadmus - Portrait of Bill Miller (Christian William Miller) at 1stdibs, https://www.1stdibs.com/art/drawings-watercolor...bill-miller.../id-a_1641813/, "In May 1951, Miller officially changed his name to Christian William Miller. Miller was known in the 1940's New York gay social scene as being one of the most ..."

- View George Platt Lynes art prices and auction results - Invaluable, https://www.invaluable.com/artist/lynes-george-platt.../sold-at-auction-prices/, "His first exhibition was held in 1933 by the Julian Levy Gallery, New York, and .... William Miller (Bill Miller) was a member of the literary, artistic and gay circles of ..."

shall I continue?--Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I further improved the article for the WP:NARTIST check and the result are as following:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors --> YES

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. --> YES

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --> YES

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. --> YES, b (2 exhibition at the MoMA) and c (The Times) and partially d (Permanent collection MoMA)--Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in Talk:George_Platt_Lynes#Nomination_of_Christian_William_Miller_for_deletion. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in Talk:Paul_Cadmus#Nomination_of_Christian_William_Miller_for_deletion. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in Talk:Glenway_Wescott#Nomination_of_Christian_William_Miller_for_deletion. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in Talk:Charles_Kaiser#Nomination_of_Christian_William_Miller_for_deletion. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a further opinion other than mine and Bearcat on this AfD? my point is that, the fact an openly gay man was working in military projects known by the like of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in the 1940s AND that the same man was later muse to artists AND partecipated to the Alfred Kinsey's research projects on sexuality AND that his designs were exhibited at the MoMA (and one is still there) are all strong points for the article to survive. But I would like to hear other opinion other than me and Bearcat. I improve the article to make all above more evident.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He sails over #2 of WP:ANYBIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." He has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in many fields: invention and design, a social, political, and artistic movement, and in a revolutionary sex study. His personal papers and materials are in the museum/library of USC and Yale because he is a central figure worthy of ongoing historical research. If he is good enough for Yale...Skistud (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "in a revolutionary sex study". This would I suppose be Kinsey's book. Two sources are given in the article for this claim. One, Google doesn't let me read. The other barely mentions Miller. -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, You can read the whole Wilf's essay "Social Change through Science: Homosexual Activism Influencing the Kinsey Report" here: http://www.library.yale.edu/~nkuhl/YCALStudentWork/Wilf%20Lesbian-Gay-History.pdf at the Yale Database.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting, but it appears to be undergraduate work. Wikipedia doesn't normally employ even masters' theses; undergraduate essays should not be cited. What wide recognition is there in reliable sources that he was a major factor in Kinsey's study? -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The correspondence with Kinsey, referred in the thesis is at the OAC - Onlive Archive of California (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt9j49s426/)

Other material, again letters and photos, are at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library within the Glenway Wescott papers (http://hdl.handle.net/10079/fa/beinecke.wescott)

The fact is reported in: Glenway Wescott Personally: A Biography, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=0299177343, Jerry Rosco

Intimate Companions: A Triography of George Platt Lynes, Paul Cadmus and Lincoln Kirstein, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1250104785, David Leddick

But above all in Sex the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=0253337348, Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy--Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:15, 5 August 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. So Why 08:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nouman Mehmood

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

fails to meet WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS, except two (Tribune and Dawn) . one doesn't mention the subject, while the other one only namechecking. Saqib (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as suggested. He fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking claim to notability. --Ifnord (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks notability ground. Information such as "In his theatrical career, he visited Germany to attend "Theatertreffen" and witnessed numerous theater, contemporary and mime plays in Germany as a host artist from Pakistan". or other visits, does not establish rationale for encyclopedia content. Light2021 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 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) 20:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shravasti Dhammika

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

Delete - Insignificant random western-born monk. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 09:27, 7 August 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) — TheMagnificentist 09:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Garden

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

Found no sources that would show that this garden passes WP:GNG. This article was deprodded with dead references replaced by archived versions. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 17:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable short article about a legitimate small public garden. Covered by New Zealand Gardens Trust [1] among other sources. Station1 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Station1. --do ncr am 23:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 1 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Sokotoff

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

WP:BLP of a journalist with no credible claim to passing our notability standards for journalists, and no reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:GNG. His notability claim amounts to "columnist for a midsize-market newspaper", and the referencing here is entirely to primary sources like his own writing in that newspaper, a spreadsheet on Google Docs, a video on Facebook and his own photography website. As always, a journalist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must have a notability claim that passes WP:JOURNALIST, and he must be the subject of reliable source coverage in publications other than his own employer, for an article to become earned. Under normal circumstances I would have speedied this, but it's a followup recreation after an earlier version was speedied for not having a strong notability claim. There's also a potential conflict of interest here, as the creator is an WP:SPA for whom Sokotoff is the only topic they've ever attempted to write about on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up little but press releases and announcement type coverage of his employment. Almost all from primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article is a mix of unreliable and non-independent sources. My own search does not turn up anything better with which to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blackguard 22:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't believe that I have a conflict of interest per se, I simply know of and appreciate this writer in our community. He is young and ambitious and I believe that it is important to illustrate that (in a non-biased way). Though you may not see the notability from your community, there is plenty an audience in ours who not only knows of, but shows interest in Sokotoff. What is the problem with having a page as a foundation to build upon as this individual does more important things in the future? There have been around ten other editors who did not seem to pose any problem regarding the notability of this subject and who must have believed that it was worth their time to invest in editing the page. There are some reliable third party sources, while there are some that I admit are a stretch, but I am still looking for a source on the heuristics research that Sokotoff has done at Carleton College, some of which is notable. It would be a waste to delete an informative community resource that not only has potential for noteworthiness, but also that many editors have spent time on. In addition, it has been picked up and rated by a couple WikiProjects who must have believed that it was notable enough. What harm would it be to simply keep it? Thank you for your time, Penger888 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not impossible for people of primarily "local to a single area" notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it requires really solid sourcing. Wikipedia is highly prone to getting misused as a public relations platform for LinkedIn-style profiles of people with no notability whatosever, on the grounds that people are somehow entitled to have articles on here just because they exist. But the key to getting a Wikipedia article, regardless of the scope or geographic range of a person's notability, is that they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in media outlets independent of their own careers, to clear WP:GNG — for the purposes of qualifying to have a Wikipedia article, notability is defined as the extent to which media outlets without a vested interest (i.e. not his own employer) choose to devote their editorial resources to covering him as a subject. And at any rate, WikiProjects do not pick and choose which articles to "adopt" based on notability assessments — every article on Wikipedia is automatically put under the aegis of whatever WikiProjects cover the article's content. So getting "adopted" by a WikiProject is not proof of notability per se, because it automatically happens to all articles that exist at all regardless of whether there are notability problems or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is one of a rotating group of ten teenage columnists for a newspaper serving a city of 112,000 people. Bearcat has ably explained the sort of sourcing needed to keep this article. It is lacking and he is not yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't have very much else to add other than the subject fails WP:AUTHOR. Sro23 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 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. per G4. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge 3

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I can find very few reliable sources that give significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 31 July 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) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slomin's

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

Unremarkable security company. Article reads like an advert. Has been deleted twice previously. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PROMO and NCORP. DrStrauss talk 16:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am the author of the article, and I say delete it. I created this article so long ago, long before I knew how Wikipedia articles ought to be written and long before I was familiar with most Wikipedia guidelines. Michipedian (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When even the article's creator wants to delete, that says something. The only ref worthy here is #6, so GNG failure as well. South Nashua (talk) 15:50, 1 August 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) WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content (Joywave album)

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

Poorly referenced article with few categories and no indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. DrStrauss talk 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was notified about this AfD on my talk page as if I created it however, I'm not the creator. Subject is notable and is covered in countless reliable sources. The page is poorly referenced but deserves to keep if improved. Meatsgains (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album is coming fresh off the shelves so perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON to nominate it for deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: or it might be WP:TOOSOON to have an article in the first place... DrStrauss talk 19:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: how so? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: because of the sources you've provided, only 4 and 5 are in-depth reviews dedicated to the album itself. The others are about the artist, not the album. DrStrauss talk 19:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: okay [7] [8] [9] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: fair enough. Pinging Funnyfrets117 as they were the author - you might want to include these. DrStrauss talk 19:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: should probably wait a week or two before deciding to keep or delete, to be honest - the album has literally only been out a few days so any reviews are likely to appear very soon. The album already has an AllMusic review. Richard3120 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Way too soon. Wait until it enters the charts at least. The "few categories" point is a poor one as well. Aria1561 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the sources above, the article itself has a Billboard (magazine) article dedicated to the album, which is about as high profile of a music source as you can get. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Safe to say this AfD should be withdrawn? Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Adequate sourcing, and agree with Aria1561—a bit too soon. Ss 112 22:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it doesn't matter much, as there are many reasons for keeping the article, and a consensus to do so, but you guys really need to actually read WP:TOOSOON - it's not a rationale for keeping articles, it's a reason for redirecting/deleting them. It doesn't say it's "too soon to delete", it says it's "too soon for the article to exist". Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BURDEN, and despite the fact that the article is now fairly long, there are not too many reliable sources in the article, mostly YouTube and Twitter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not accurate either. The sourcing is there. We've got dedicated sourcing from Billboard, Pitchfork, and AllMusic, all very mainstream reliable sources and viewed as such per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. The WP:GNG is met. My point was just to alert users TheGracefulSlick, Ss112, and probably Aria1561 that WP:TOOSOON would be the wrong rationale to cite here, per my explanation one comment above. They're right to say that the article should be kept, it's just that WP:TOOSOON does not factor into those reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm well aware of what WP:TOOSOON says. That's why I didn't cite it. I simply meant an article being created and then immediately or very soon after being nominated for deletion is not letting it develop for a little bit before it's evident claims of notability or coverage that would indicate otherwise is not forthcoming. Not policy or guideline-based, and confusing as it uses the words "too soon" as well, but that seems to a philosophy used in some discussions. Ss 112 12:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine, I was just making sure. You mostly said "per Aria", who they themselves had a very vague rationale. It looked like one or both of you could have been using it in the wrong capacity, as it appears GracefulSlick was. It's not an issue or anything. Just making sure everyone knew so it wouldn't confuse the issue at this, or future, AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 7 August 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) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tebyan Cultural Institute

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

Per WP:NOTDIR. Simply stating what the website is about is not grounds for inclusion. DrStrauss talk 15:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There ~~are~~ were two separate articles whose AfD notices both point to this one discussion: Tebyan Cultural Institute, created 15:35, 31 July 2017‎ and Tebyan Cultural and Information Institute, created 16:18, 1 August 2017‎ by a copy-and-paste move. PamD 15:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC) 15:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EDITATAFD: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator). In the light of that, and as the move was done wrongly anyway, I think it is reasonable to turn the second version of the article into a redirect to the original, and will now do so. By all means move the article, properly, after the AfD has been resolved. PamD 15:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tebyan Cultural Institute is a notable organization in Iran. I have added additional references, such as BBC, ABC, Dailymail and the Iran Book News Agency website, to the page that confirm the notability of this institute. There are many other notable sources that can be added to improve the page in Wikipedia. I also propose to transfer the page to a new page entitled "Tebyan Cultural and Information Institute" that holds the complete name of this organization.Amidewiki (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it looks as if the list of sources can be used to source the article better. PamD 15:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this article was brought to AfD within one hour of its creation, with no tags assigned to prompt improvement before that. PamD 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet WP:GNG. Some of the references in the article (BBC and ABC) are referring to "tebyan.net" not the institute itself, but this, this and this seem pretty conclusively to establish notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 6 August 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) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scart series

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

Makes no credible claim of significance and fails guideline for video game inclusion. DrStrauss talk 15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would have suggested PROD first, but since we're here, clear delete. A search for reliable sources turns up nothing. Might be eligible for speedy as a hoax since Google finds nothing in the first few pages. --Izno (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Izno I often avoid PRODs because they're usually useless. Creator just de-prods after six days then you get a seven day AfD. DrStrauss talk 21:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A3 (no content) even if it's not a hoax it shouldn't have been made._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about A3, as there is content present, even if its garbage. But WP:G3 maybe. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cant find sources on this. Not even unreliable or first party ones, so I can't even confirm it exists. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax (that's my rationale). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable subject. I could find no reliable sourcing. At the least fails GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 23:25, 6 August 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) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernation in Belief

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

Fails WP:NOR and WP:ESSAY. DrStrauss talk 15:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not so much essay as borderline incomprehensible rambling. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete incomprehensible A Guy into Books (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to be attempting to describe the book Al-Iqtisad fi al-iʻtiqad (Moderation in Belief; note the typo in the article name) by Al-Ghazali, but contains no content worth salvaging. If anyone cares to dig up actual sources at some point, it would be easier to create a new article at the correct name. Layzner (Talk) 00:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ESSAY, as this reads like a review of a book rather than an encyclopedic entry. Space on Wikipedia is not allotted for people to write personal reflections. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an easy to understand article or essay. No references present in article. Notability has not been established. Antonioatrylia (talk) 02:00, 7 August 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) 20:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Is Complicated (EP)

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

Other than track listings and other trivial mentions, no indication this passes WP:GNG and certainly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM, few reliable sources giving WP:SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 16:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, there seems to be many deadmau5 articles like this that are sourced entirely by discogs, iTunes, etc. It is going to require a clean-up, regrettably some more AfDs as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe merge some content to Deadmau5 discography. Noting found to justify a standalone article. The discography article is rather sparse when it comes to the EPs, and a table there with a few more details would make this article pretty much redundant. If kept, the unnecessary disambiguation in the title should be dropped. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Article does not have many reliable sources. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Arabs. Already implemented and agreed to by article creator. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab celebrities

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

No citations, unnecessary list. What defines a celebrity? Wikipedia isn't just a random collection of information. DrStrauss talk 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Arabs. Pretty much the same thing.--Greeninventor999 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Arabs. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LewisChu (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)LewisChuLewisChu (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 31 July 2017[reply]

As mentioned in my notes on creation this was meant as a work in progress to encourage others to assist in building a list of scitists, politicians and Nobel prize winners etc from the Middle East however I can see from the comments here that List of Arabs effectively does this with some more cited contribution, As such as author of the page I would myself agree with the suggestion to simply redirect the search term to the existing page List of Arabs I am new to Wikipedia so unsure of when to do that but please feel free to do so, unless anyone has an objection?

LewisChu (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)LewisChuLewisChu (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 31 July 2017[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edemities

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

Fails WP:BIO. Generally incoherent, half the sources are to his own social media. DrStrauss talk 15:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 candidate no doubt. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO.-Umair Aj (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 09:33, 7 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge 3

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

Does not satisfy film notability guidelines. No references. Unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear case of WP:TOOSOON ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 09:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Health

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Didn't find anything in Bengali also. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NRADIO. DrStrauss talk 16:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This domain name expired on 2017-07-11 06:49:42" I don't think this succeeded; WP:NRADIO failure. Probably a pipe dream that didn't go farther than the Internet for a few months. Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Online radio stations do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing — they need to be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG. But its own self-published website about itself is the only source present here, and even if it were still a live link that still wouldn't have been enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRADIO. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete Article was eligible for a G6 as a disambig for red links RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Odintsov

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

The article Aleksandr Odintsov (gymnast) was moved to Draft:Aleksandr Odintsov (gymnast), which was then deleted 3 months later, so this disambiguation page is no longer necessary. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can WP:G8 cover disambig pages with only redlinks? I've tried that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BLP1E Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaeyaena Beuraheng

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

I PROD'd this in April for the following reason: Single-event BLP article of an otherwise low-profile individual. No lasting effects as a result of this occurrence - no policies, laws, or customs arose as a result of this. This is undeniably newsworthy (or was at the time), but it is not encyclopedic.

PROD was declined: Prod declined, but feel free to AFD. It's stretching WP:BLP1E to breaking point to claim it when the "one event" in question was 25 years long

I disagree. Essentially, this woman was briefly newsworthy for re-appearing after being missing for 25 years. Her brief newsworthiness arose from her being found, not from the entire 25 years she was gone. Otherwise, she is a low-profile individual of no particular note. There is no ongoing coverage in any available media of her or her situation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a case where the focus should should be on the event (her becoming lost and re-discovery) rather than the individual. That said, I don't see any indication that the case has generated any WP:LASTING long-term significance. Personally though I think it'd be a shame to have to delete this article; it's an interesting encyclopaedic topic which may actually be revisited in wider discourse in the future. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 15:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel that WP:BLP1E does apply here. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 6 August 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) 20:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shaikh

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

Shaikh was elected as a Senator-in-waiting at the Alberta Senate nominee election, 2012. The top three candidates from that election all "won," and the top two (Doug Black and Scott Tannas) were appointed to the Senate by PM Harper. No third vacancy - the one that would be filled by Shaikh - has yet occurred. However, since the election was held:

The legislation that governs Senatorial nominee elections in Alberta has expired,^[1] meaning that there won't be any more of these elections held.
Current PM Trudeau is taking a different approach^[2] to Senate appointments.

References

^ http://daveberta.ca/2016/12/alberta-senate-nominee-elections/
^ https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/independent-advisory-board-for-senate-appointments.html

These factors make it unlikely that Shaikh will ever be appointed to the Senate. This is an interesting test case for WP:NPOL - Shaikh was elected, but hasn't assumed office in five years and likely will never. I don't believe he merits an article at this time. Madg2011 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If and when he's appointed to the Senate, then he'll obviously qualify for an article on those grounds — but for the exact reasons Madg2011 describes, merely winning one of Alberta's unofficial senate nominee elections is not an automatic guarantee of appointment. These elections are not constitutionally mandated, but are one province's unofficial exercise in senate reform which prime ministers are free to support or ignore at their own discretion — generally, if the incumbent PM at the time of an Alberta senate vacancy is a Conservative, then a "senator-in-waiting" will get the seat(s), but if the incumbent PM is a Liberal, then most likely the "senator-in-waiting" won't get the seat. (Both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin also ignored a couple of "senators in waiting" to make other appointments instead.) As of today, five of the winners since 1989 have gotten appointed while four have not, and that would have been five-four the other way if one of the non-appointed election winners from 1998 hadn't run again a second time in 2004 and then gotten appointed off that victory. So merely winning one of these elections is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, because it offers no guarantee that the person will ever actually accede to office. Which means for now, the only valid grounds for an article here would be getting him over WP:GNG for his career in business, which the minimal sourcing here isn't doing — if he actually gets appointed to the Senate, then he'll qualify for an article, but he doesn't get one just for being the winner of a theoretical election whose results nobody actually has any constitutional obligation to honour. And for added bonus, this is written remarkably like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, which isn't the type of article he would get to have even if he were an actual senator. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is a resume with no working references. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as this being a "test case"; if the article passed WP:GNG I would support keeping the article, at least until the next Senator from Alberta is definitely someone else. The speculation above is accurate, but is still speculation as the Senate seat will not be open for another year. Power~enwiki (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 08:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger DiLuigi III

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

Fails WP:BIO, most or all sources seem to be promotional and/or not independent, or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO, trivial mentions do not make the significant coverage that notability requires.. --Ifnord (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.. Per WP:G11 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short Simple Resignation Letter Sample

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

WP:NOTHOWTO _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly, WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not an advice column or self-help book. Also, original research. Largoplazo (talk) 14:15, 31 July 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. With due respect to Fram and Ravenswing's deletion arguments, the consensus evident is tending towards keeping this article. I would suggest further discussions on the talk page of the article with respect to the points brought forward by the delete !voters, before future renomination of this article for deletion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amory N. Hardy

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

No evidence of notability for this photographer, no indepth reliable sources about him, fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Frankly, I could see an A7 for failure to make an assertion of notability, because even after you prodded it, the article creator didn't trouble to provide any evidence or rationale save for a couple links to more of his work. No doubt there'll be 'keep' proponents who'll argue that It's So Hard To Find Info about 19th century figures, but first someone needs to establish a legitimate basis to consider him notable. Ravenswing 19:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardy's work is in several major American research collections (WP:CREATIVE 4.d.): Smithsonian, Library of Congress, and Harvard University, among others. He also created visual portraits of 19th c. historical figures such as justice O.W. Holmes Jr. and U.S. president Arthur. -- M2545 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think I agree. Criterion #4 holds "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." That some of his works are among the holdings of Harvard or the LOC doesn't meet that; it's whether his works are on display in their collections. Is there any reason to believe that's the case? For someone who seems to lack any biography or critical examination, we need more than "Among the several thousand period photographs Harvard owns, some were taken by this guy." Ravenswing 21:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou have to understand how permanent collections of museums work. I'm really holding back here when I politely explain that ALL major museums only exhibit a very small portion of their permanent collections. Saying someone does not meet part d) of WP:ARTIST because their work is in the permanent collection of, say the LOC or Harvard or the Smithsonian, but it's not on exhibiton, is a statement that is high on the sale of ridiculous statements. I'm really trying to be polite here. The Library of Congress has 164 Million items in their collection, The Smithsonian has 156 million items. In fact, they have a terrific web site where they explicity say this: "Only a small portion of the Smithsonian’s collections (estimated at less than 2 percent) is on display in the museums at any given time." 104.163.142.4 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I understand that perfectly well, and that's exactly my point. We're talking notability here. Someone is "notable" because the world notices you, and the world notices you when your artwork's on display. What is high on the scale of ridiculous statements is the premise that someone's notable because his works are in Drawer 47-B in Vault 71 of the Smithsonian's basement. It's just this kind of award inflation that's marred notability criteria all around Wikipedia, in similar fashion to "Everyone who's ever played in the majors is notable, including a guy known only to us as "J Smith," who pitched one inning for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1878" (NSPORTS) or "He's notable because he's had significant roles in several stage performances, all out of a community light opera in Hartford" (NACTOR). (Heck, if that's how it goes, as a multiply-published author with my works (by statute) sent to the LOC's collection, then I'm entitled to an article, which is another of those ridiculous statements.) Ravenswing 09:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really argue your position as it is untenable. With respect, you don't seem to understand how museums work. The notability-giving act exists in the curation-- when the work is chosen for the collection, it becomes notable. Whether or not it is exhibited is not really a consideration. Also, the permanent-collection-items-must-be-exhibited criteria you are claiming is entirely your own invention. I do not see it being mentioned anywhere in the policy for WP:Creative or WP:Artist. What about artists who are in the collection, are exhibited and then are put into storage? Are they no longer notable, since the world only "notices you when your artwork's on display"? Thus, the criteria you propose is ridiculous. You're entitled to hold that view though. I'd encourage you to read up on permanent collections, curators and exhibitions and on how these distinct processes operate and contribute to notability in artists. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a good introduction to the problems of permanent collections.104.163.142.4 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, you're not saying that this article fails the established notability test; you're instead arguing for a change to this notability test. And I have some sympathy for what you're saying. Still, if we were toying with the idea of altering notability tests to make them represent actual notability (as the word is understood outside Wikipedia), then my own first concern would be the welcome shown here to bric-à-brac from miscellaneous "universes" and "franchises" of the entertainment industry (see this little list for a small and very humdrum sample). However, an AfD isn't the place for such attempts at alteration. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very well how museums work (thank you for your condescension, 104.163.142.4, from your great experience of five days on Wikipedia). What I am saying is that "represented" doesn't mean "sitting in a basement drawer." I'm saying that it means "on display." Obviously pieces get rotated in and out, and obviously notability is not temporary, but I really do challenge either of you -- or anyone, really -- to demonstrate that Hardy's work ever has been given any measure of public display beyond digital links. Any published biographies? Any mention in works on photographic history? Ravenswing 02:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained what happens to artists with permanent collection artworks that are on display or a month but then put into storage. Do they lose their notability? You're also completely ignoring the fact that museums typically show a very small part of their permanent collections. Your ideas about notability in permanent collections are rational, but they ignore the way museums and permanent colelcitons have worked for centuries, and instead propose a new standard of WP:Notability for creative workers. I'd suggest reading up on how museum permanent collections work. The curators and committees that select works for permanent collections are analogous to the editors and editorial committees that select writing for publication in newspapers, magazines and books. It's the act of selection that confers notability. Once selected, it matters little if the work is stored for a few decades and shown for omly a month. Similarly, a Pulitzer prize winning book stored in a library basement is no less of notable book. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the question of how to interpret "represented" at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Among the several thousand period photographs Harvard owns, some were taken by this guy. Ditto for several places other than Harvard. And we are given references for these claims. So he's "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Being 'represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" is indeed not the same thing as being displayed in a gallery or museum; but WP:ARTIST talks of the former, not the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is in the permanent collection of several major museums. This should probably be withdrawn, as since the nomination User:M2545 M2545 did a spectacular job improving the article, which included the addition of an enormous list of permanent collections. He's in numerous permanent collections of major museums, which means he meets WP:ARTIST, so there is not much to discuss here. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, and ass explained above this shows a spectacular misunderstanding of WP:ARTIST. He has not received any significant attention, his work is in thecollection (though most or all of it not on display in any case) because of the sitters, not because he made these photographs. Harvard University Archives (one of the many collections at Harvard) contains more than 20,000 portrait photographs alone, and many more with other subjects. This is not distinctive enough by far. I see no reason to withdraw this at all. Fram (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent commendable improvements to this article by User:M2545 show notability. This is now a well referenced biography. Extensive museum holdings help establish notability even if the photos are not currently on display. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 8 August 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) 20:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Robillard-Cole

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

Other than a few trivial mentions, mostly to do with the Juno incident, not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 16:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 09:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Glass House season 1 contestants#Apollo Poetry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevan Apollo Poetry

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

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Poetry. Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening 3 years. SmartSE (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy delete per G4. DrStrauss talk 16:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect already included at List of The Glass House season 1 contestants#Apollo Poetry - Galatz ^Talk 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Clearly does not necessitate a standalone article but the redirect target mentioned above is sufficient.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brown (footballer)

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

One sentence stub with no in-line citations. The one link shows a few handful of games in England's lower leagues, but nothing beyond routine to show passing WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" - withdrawing, as now that it has been expanded seems notable enough. Shame it takes 9 years and an AfD to get to that state. --SuperJew (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a handful of appearances a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Also indications of GNG sourced below (my browser doesn't like soccerbase and it looked like he had made 3 appearances not 30 at first read). Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since when did 35 appearances at a fully professional level of English football, including 2 in the Premier League and a Football League Second Division title, equate to a "technical" pass of NFOOTY along the lines of a couple of games in the Russian third tier or one appearance in the League Cup? And I'd have thought this and this might not show a GNG pass, but they certainly show that he doesn't "comprehensively" fail it. Struway2 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (thanks Keresaspa for improving the references. The Manchester Evening News piece is verifiable and adequate.) Until this article can be improved with adequate referencing and actual content, it should be userfied if there's a volunteer or deleted. His name is listed on at least 4 articles. That's about as much detail as is provided in this stub. Hmlarson (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Hmlarson (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Briscoe

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

One sentence stub which hasn't been expanded upon in 2.5 years. Has only one source which doesn't show that it meets WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no indication of GNG, but would be willing to reconsider if a substantial plying career meeting NFOOTY could be shown. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the links below give a detailed history of the man's life, both the Stevenage and Margate sources are undeniably WP:PRIMARY. However, the Stevenage source shows not only was he a prominent enough player that he appeared on a cigarette card, but also that he received non-routine coverage in newspapers during his career. Furthermore, this, this and this show a continuing level of coverage of the man well after the end of his playing career which, when all added together seem to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL per below. Giant Snowman 17:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY by virtue of 5 appearances (3 goals) for Sheffield Wednesday just after the war. Decent bio on the Margate FC website, very lengthy bio/tributes on the Stevenage website, which incidentally shows he had sufficient profile to appear on a cigarette card. Lifetime involvement in football suggests he'd likely pass GNG as well as the subject-specific guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:GNG can be established. Hmlarson (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Struway2's research, subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL. If we were to delete every football biography that meets WP:NFOOTBALL but doesn't pass WP:GNG (or at least based on a cursory glance), we'd be retaining very few articles for players who were active pre-war. And all that would do is add to the already staggering level of recentist bias the encyclopedia already suffers from. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless, in its current state it doesn't stand as an article. Should be at the minimum userfied until it's a real article. Its existence as a sentence in the mainspace doesn't contribute anything. --SuperJew (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Deletion is not cleanup. Plenty of material about him here. I've added an infobox and some basic footballing info. @GiantSnowman: Do you want to reconsider? Number 5 7 09:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Struway2 & Number 57. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the excellent research showing he passes WP:NFOOTY. AFD is not cleanup. The current state is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 14:45, 2 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding delete votes, no need to keep this open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bollington

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

Has mostly coached amateur clubs, apart from 1 game in charge of Netherlands senior team. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - per confirmation of WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has managed at the highest possible level, namely a senior international football team. This added to a substantial career at the top end of English football makes it likely that this player, who was prominent nearly a century ago would have received sufficient coverage for GNG at the time in sources now not readily available. Fenix down (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He managed for 1 game, which I would assume means he was a caretaker. --SuperJew (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make assumptions, especially when they have no bearing on the subject-specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some sources seem to disagree who the manager for the game in question was (this and this, both seemingly reliable, list Bob Glendenning). I suppose Dutch users could find better local sources. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if we add in the fact that the source on Bollington's page is a deadlink... --SuperJew (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. GiantSnowman 16:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What's clearly notable about him? --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm surprised the referencing is considered up to the standards of editors such as Fenix down and GiantSnowman. Looks like they need to be improved in order to meet WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a copy of the Joyce book will be able to expand upon his professional playing career - which according to the Dutch article lasted over a decade. Something needing improving is not a reason to delete, as you should know. Giant Snowman 17:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what guideline, GS? Or are you being purposefully vague? Hmlarson (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL-REASON good enough for you? Giant Snowman 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Joyce book is one secondary source (fine), the CVV Vriendenschaar ref appears to be a primary source (fine - but need additional secondary sources), and the third is dead. The two you just added a few minutes ago are stats. Is this sufficient to you both (now) as editors with admin privileges when the notability of the subject is being questioned? I'd just like to confirm. Hmlarson (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the sources verify a claim to notability? Yes. Is that claim to notability sufficient? Yes. Nothing to do with being an "admin"; you've clearly got a chip on your shoulder. Giant Snowman 17:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need some secondary references to meet WP:GNG, GS, but nice try. Hmlarson (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL as having managed an international match and having played in a fully-professional league. Can't quite get my head around this AFD. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See, I have no idea how much to trust the info on the page. Edits like this ("although that book makes no mention of his having played for Walsall", but leaving it in the infobox) make me doubt the reliability of the info. Also doubt about his 1 international coaching match, per No longer a penguin comment above, as RSSSF is a reliable source. --SuperJew (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This book gives a list of Netherlands managers: Mr Bollington's dates are given as 2 Nov 1924 to 14 Mar 1925 (which basically starts with the South Africa match but stops before their next fixture). And I see someone's added a source to the article that includes a contemporary newspaper cutting showing his appointment for the SA fixture. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sourcing is good now. I suppose the conflicting sources came from South African records, which can be expected to make an occasional mistake about their opponents. As expected, Dutch sources are much better for that purpose. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:NFOOTY in two ways: he played in the English Football League for Southend and Brighton, and he managed the Netherlands national team. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:NFOOTY and his presumption of notability has not been adequately challenged. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 14:46, 2 August 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) — TheMagnificentist 09:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bartley

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

Played a few games of football, doesn't pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY, the sources in the article would also suggest significant coverage in non-routine sources that would go some way to satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way. Giant Snowman 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Fenix down and GiantSnowman. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in it's current state should at the minimum be userfied. The 2 sentences in the mainspace don't contribute anything. --SuperJew (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant argument per WP:NEGLECT, a subject is notable or not regardless of the length of article. We wouldn't keep a non-notable article simply because it was lengthy. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 09:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All you need to pass WP:NFOOTBALL is make one appearance in a fully-professional league, not four, five or whatever some people seem to think it should mean. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFOOTBALL is only a guideline, not the end all rule. --SuperJew (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is WP:GNG, which you cite in the rationale for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. The current state of the article is irrelevant. AFD is not cleanup. If it's notable, it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Subject is notable. Antonioatrylia (talk) 02:06, 7 August 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) — TheMagnificentist 09:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Atkinson (Olympic footballer)

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

Played only 1 game for Great Britain in the Olympics, and for an amateur club. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be one of a few WP:POINTY changes following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Gray. I would recommend a bit of caution here, as the player was active a long time before digital media, the fact that there are not abundant online sources does not mean there would not be more in depth coverage elsewhere (I don't know enough about English football to know if/where). However we do know from one of the sources used that he played for England Amateurs (at a time when professional football was not as wide ranging as today), represented the UK in an Olympics and was a one-club man with Bishop Auckland, where he won multiple FA Amateur Cups. All of this leads me to suspect there might be significant coverage (probably archival) about this player somewhere. There are definitely male footballers who fail GNG but I don't think this is necessarily one. Further, aside from passing WP:NFOOTY, which I know the nominator is not a fan of, WP:NOLY provides a further (and gender-neutral) presumption that this player is notable. Is there enough here to rebut either or both of those presumptions? I suspect maybe not. Macosal (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All his achievements you brought are amateur achievements, and according to our good friend WP:NFOOTY, unless you're fully pro, that's not good enough. Regarding the Olympics, it was only 1 game and also WP:NOLY is a guideline. --SuperJew (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to iterate, I don't have a problem with WP:NFOOTY, I have a problem that it's disproportionate. --SuperJew (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a problem to me. But regardless, he passes WP:NOLY so let's focus on that for argument's sake (note he does pass WP:NFOOTY as he played for a national team and at the Olympics). So we presume he is notable. Can you show that he isn't? I'd suggest not. Macosal (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he only played one professional match, and only has one source which might be considered not-routine. --SuperJew (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, this player is from an era before digital information. The fact you can only find one source is not a great indicator of notability as the sources about this player would not be searchable on the internet whether significant or not. Thus having a presumption is helpful here. In your WP:POINTY efforts you have stumbled onto quite a genuine WP:RECENTISM issue. Macosal (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while talking about WP:NOLY it's also biased - to be notable as a regular person you only have to compete in the Olympics, but as a disabled person you have to win a medal. --SuperJew (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NOLY, underlining that one of the purposes of such subject specific guidelines is to avoid recentism. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an Olympian, he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NOLY, passes WP:NFOOTY. His notability is presumed unless demonstrated otherwise. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOLYMPICS. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY - competed at the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. Giant Snowman 16:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The assumption that all participants in every olympics from 1896 on are notable ignores the reality of the rules, or often total lack thereof, for participation in the early days of the sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 4 August 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.

As WP:NSPORT is currently written, meeting WP:NFOOTY is only an indicator that WP:GNG is met but GNG has to be met as well for inclusion (it has been that way since 2010). GNG does not trump SNGs in every case but it does trump those SNGs that explicitly require GNG to be met (which includes WP:NSPORT but not the equally applicable WP:BASIC). Arguing that a subject is notable solely because it meets WP:NFOOTY and does not have to meet WP:GNG is thus incorrect.

That said, when WP:NFOOTY is met, especially when the subject was active before the internet age, the argument that sources probably exist holds some weight. Also, Struway2 added sources that were not discussed. In the end, there is no consensus whether this article should be deleted (with alternatives such as redirecting to the club's article not even be discussed) and unlikely to exist after relisting.

Regards So Why 08:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ackerman

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

Played only 4 games of football. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a handful of appearances, especially now his career is well and truly over(to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Fenix down, fails WP:GNG and not even sure the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leyton Orient F.C., given that his claim to notability is playing for them. Giant Snowman 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL - the "doesn't meet GNG rule" is usually reserved for those with one or 2 appearances, four is enough IMO. GiantSnowman 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why? Did those extra 2 appearances give him more than the routine coverage only 2 did? --SuperJew (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL, by playing in the Football League for Orient. I've added a bit to the article: sources include a short Daily Mirror piece about his having two games in a week in the reserves, signing a pro contract, and going straight into the team for the next day's match, w/quote from manager. Doesn't demonstrate GNG, but it demonstrates a reasonable presumption of it if one had greater access to contemporary newspapers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL, regardless of whether WP:GNG is met. I see "common sense" is cited a lot in these AfDs, but I can't see what sense there is in contributing to the encyclopedia's systemic recentist bias by deleting historic biographies. Contemporary sources are more difficult to locate, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline which is biased toward keeping male footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is WP:GNG. So your solution to that is to seek the deletion of a raft of male footballer biographies...? Why not do something to help demonstrate the notability of female player articles? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL per above. See also WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please read WP:BIAS Smartyllama --SuperJew (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You started this AfD, I assumed in good faith because you believed this player did not meet GNG. You now seem to be trying to use it as a forum to discuss gender bias. YOu know full well this is not the right forum, and must be aware that this makes your actions look really quite POINT-y. Please restrict your comments in this discussion to the notability of the player in question. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Satisfies NFOOTBALL. whilst the article does not demonstrate a passing of GNG that does not demonstrate that the subject "fails" GNG. It might just mean offline sources have yet to be found. The oft trotted out lie that GNG trumps SNGs is just misdirection, wp:NOTABILITY says no such thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number of games played doesn't matter. Ackerman meets NFOOTY and is presumed notable. — TheMagnificentist 09:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article makes no indication of satisfying the GNG. I found a handful of match reports (e.g., STFC website and the like, but nothing cited in the article or online suggests significant coverage exists. If offline sources exist and can be found, the article can be restored and expanded at that time. For now, it's a perma-stub. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above by duffbeerforme, GNG doesnt trump SNGs. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The SNG simply establishes a presumption of notability based on expected GNG-compliance. This article has existed for nearly 4 years without reaching that bar, and based on my review of online sources, I can't see it happening. If the offline sources exist, some editor will need to establish that and hopefully expand this stub. For now, I see no reason to keep it. Jogurney (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PILLARS 1 and 5. Articles should be considered as a set not just individually (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott) and the subject notability guideline identifies appropriate sets of articles. Peter James (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peter James: What set is Ackerman part of? --SuperJew (talk) 17:55, 8 August 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) 20:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo G

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The entire biography section is a cut-and-paste from this source. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 31 July 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. So Why 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingmarlo

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

Promotional article, with hints at WP:MUSICBIO but no clear demonstration of it and certainly not of WP:GNG. No German-language article to help and I could not find extensive coverage via Google. Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject does not goes over the threshold for WP:COMPOSERs. One Google hit for a "Ibiza Chill-out"composing where he is listed together with others. On the German-language Wikipedia is an article about a band where he is listed as a member [10], but that is not enough for WP:MUSICBIO. Searched all spelling variants of his surname (a/ae/ä). Ben Ben ^(talk) 17:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and no real claim to notability. The article has lots of listing in the "discography" section but I bet many amateur musicians have even longer discographies of their own work on their computers. --Ifnord (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Doc James. Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G5, G11 (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 09:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSteamTeam

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

Non notable company that doesn't meet GNG, sources are press releases and was created by SPA whose first edits are to game the system and get autoconfirmed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 31 July 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frightmare Halloween Festival

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

Article is supported by sources with an interest in the "festival". The most used source is the webpage for the festival. The other sources are a local radio station (sponsor) and the local chamber of commerce's website. Reads more like an advertisement than an article. — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 00:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly written in a promotional tone and no independent references. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Holidays-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local seasonal event lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 8 August 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. If List of Fox News contributors is created, he might be listed there, since notability requirements for stand-alone lists are less than for stand-alone articles, but until then, deletion is the consensus here. So Why 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Waltz

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Couldn't find secondary independent sources covering the subject or his career. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorially toned BLP for an non notable individual. Promo content includes:

He regularly appears on prime time and daily shows (...) He is also a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies[13] and regularly speaks at industry, policy, and charity forums!

Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau to help book speaking gigs, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; really just a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews in thinkpragati.com and Publishers Weekly plus the coverage connected with the Bergdahl incident, are together enough for notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any excessively promotional content can be removed by normal editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if your suggestion is followed, there will be nothing left in the article. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral Per TNT. I'm going to MOAB the article into its place. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deed is

Done. Before and After. Probably can still use tweaking. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did more thinking and unconvinced myself. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is in a significantly different state than it was when first nominated. Paging editors DESiegel, K.e.coffman, Kierzek, and Oluwa2Chainz to have a second look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, thanks to your work, L3X1, but I am still not convinced of his level of notability. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An experienced editor created this and another editor gave it an upgrade so I'm relying on them ot have brought the most persuasive sources that exist and evaluating this one by the sources on the page and not running searches of my own. It's not enough. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of his career. The book he wrote cannot be considered notable. Being a Lt. Colonel does not make him notable by dint of rank. Nor is he notable as a journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still stand with my delete vote per reasons brought forward by E.M.Gregory —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made some of the initial edits to this page, because I thought the subject was notable - it just hadn't been cited properly. The book itself, the book reviews, the Bergdahl incident, and his apparent importance throughout the Afghan conflict seemed worthy to me. And the additional edits since then have made it pretty on point. Ge0rgi3Washington (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged -- still "Delete". Notability is not established by the existing sources. The article continues to be promotional, with copy such as:

Waltz is a Fox News contributor and comments on foreign policy and defense issues for Fox channels. He has appeared on prime time and daily shows such as Special Report with Bret Baier, Hannity, and Fox and Friends.[11][12]

The two citations are to the Fox channel, so a primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a WP:BIO1E, so a redirect would seem to the obvious answer. However, it seems that consensus is that only notable people get mentioned in Fox News' article, and the List of fox news contributors is a redirect there, which leaves us pretty much with "delete" as the only option left. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and K.e.coffman's argument this is a promotional-only article. I cannot find any criteria where the subject meets notability guidelines. --Ifnord (talk) 21:05, 8 August 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Trobbiani

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

Does not neet biographical notability. No independent references in article, and no independent coverage found on Google search. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Hacknet#Development. Not notable in his own right, not inherited from the game. Not sufficient further NEXIST for more than a few lines of stub. If anything way TOOSOON. Possible valid search term so merge and redirect his name into the game article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. He isn't even mentioned in the article, so merging would be unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that was my point. He probably deserves one line in the Hacknet article ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is a 2016 Rolling Stone article on his experience as a developer.

Can you provide a link to this? Whether this helps would be dependent on how in-depth it was, if it was focused around him or not, and whether or now, and how much, of the source was an interview. Just saying a source exists doesn't help a ton by itself. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had added it to his and the game article Patrick Stafford, Glixel, (3 June 2016), Solo Indie Game Development – Not for Faint of Heart, Rolling Stone

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please evaluate if the Rolling Stone profile is a sufficient demonstration of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would like to change my vote to Keep. After looking in VG Custom Search I found two more sources. [11] [12] The Kotaku one especially is definitely significant coverage. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:13, 1 August 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. As usual, if a non-COI, non-sock editor wants to revive this after finding more sources, leave me a message. At this time however consensus is clearly against him being sufficiently notable. So Why 07:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry R. Clarke

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

Non notable puzzler. One review is linked, for one of his books, but I did not find any others. No inherent notability, no passing the GNG, no passing PROF/AUTHOR guidelines. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, and his papers don't seem to be cited much (if at all), thus making it fail WP:PROF. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My feeling is that as the author of this many books from good publishers, he should be notable. But I tried and failed to find reliably-published reviews of the other books, independent sourcing for his telegraph column, etc., that could be used as evidence of notability. One review (all we have now) is not evidence of notability, and I don't have anything else. AfD participants should note that the article used to be much more detailed (see e.g. this earlier version) but I removed most of it as unsourced and unverifiable, although I have no reason to doubt the truth of any of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

** Definite delete. It appears to attract internet bullies. BRC ((struck !vote from sockpuppet of Barryispuzzled (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he's been contributing to the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times for decades (which would qualify him for a redirect to one or the other of those papers, but since we can't do both it has to be a "keep"). Because he tends to work in the background and not go around granting interviews to The Guardian, he comes up short in a web search. Nevertheless, I think there are sources hiding out there that can confirm his journalistic career, it's just going to be a bit of a slog finding them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked for such sources without success, so I am not as optimistic as you about their existence. The purported source you added (one of his own columns) is no good; we need confirmation not just that he wrote for one periodical once but that he has been a long-time regular columnist. And given the history of self-promotion associated with this article it would be best for such sources to be completely independent (e.g. not just blurbs from his books). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I first commented on this AfD, Barry Clarke has begun haranguing me by email and, after I repeatedly requested him to provide better sourcing than we have, has instead proceeded to physical threats ("I've no doubt whatsoever that you wouldn't be so cocky if we were in the same room"). Needless to say, this is not helping to persuade me that keeping this marginal article is an improvement to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prolific writer who has authored a number of books and has been cited in other people's books [13]. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And Adoil Descended can you be more specific about which notability criterion is satisfied by being a prolific writer, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I? What's in it for me? And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, comments at AfDs are given more weight when they are grounded in policies and guidelines. I would think you would want your comments to be given more weight. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now we're getting into fat jokes? :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited by independent sources [14], [15], and [16] for WP:SUSTAINED. Prendergast246 — Prendergast246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hey Home Lander, I'm new here cos I'm responding to a message board request for research assistance. Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found another citation (scroll down) in support of WP:NRVE [17] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A work cited in Transactions on Education (2002), p.3 [18] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Note II in this online citation [19] Prendergast246

This from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (scroll down to bottom, Other Internet Resources) [20] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a bestselling book 'Challenging Logic Puzzles Mensa' [21] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in 'International Conference on Distance Learning' (2007) (scroll to bottom) [22] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading list published by McGraw-Hill (scroll down to 'Vacation Reading') [23] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this link is more interesting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's worth it to even respond to someone who starts out by accusing themself of meatpuppetry, but let's look at Prendergast246's supposed sources anyway. (1,2,4) promotional materials on books by other people that feature pull quotes by Clarke. No content about Clarke. (3) A magazine puzzle column in which some of the individual columns were written by Clarke. No material about Clarke, not even explaining whether he is a regular columnist for the magazine. (5) a single low-quality academic journal article about someone else's puzzle and its connection to the TSP, also mentioning a puzzle by Clarke that is connected to the TSP. No information about Clarke. (6) A spammy web-scraper blog post that copies one of Clarke's puzzles. Again, no information about Clarke. (7) An encyclopedia page that has an external link (not a reference) to a web page maintained by Clarke on a similar topic. Are we keeping Wikipedia articles about anyone who wrote a web page that someone else ever linked to, now? (8) an image search results page, (8) a link to an empty pdf file, and (9) a school worksheet of unknown provenance that mentions his book in passing as additional reading. None of this amounts to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Telegraph puzzlist (3 million readership), Prospect magazine puzzlist (30,000 readership, copy sent to all MPs), amazon book bestseller (must be over 70,000 copies for that). Surely that's 'notable' (well-known). FleischerDan (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — FleischerDan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The fact that he writes puzzles for big newspapers doesn't help us write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, and given the long history of problematic editing surrounding this BLP, it really does need to be solidly sourced. At the end of the day we don't appear to have sufficient sources about Clarke to meet WP:ANYBIO, so despite his accomplishments it has to go. – Joe (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's criteria for notability; whilst I see many people saying he must meet it, I don't see anyone pointing to a specific notability guide and saying where this subject meets it. --Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:25, 8 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Capital Surigao

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

No evidence of notability, only 40 stores and 20,000 m3 (most notable malls have 100,000+). PROD removed by IP without citing a reason Ajf773 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG; there are a few articles about effects of earthquakes on the mall etc, but these are all from regional sources except for one --Hazarasp (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Raza

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

not clear sign of notability therefore fails per WP:GNG.. cited sources does not verify anything at all. "Tamasha" may have won 4th Hum Awards 2016 but not the subject himself. Saqib (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. He fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of ABS-CBN Corporation channels and stations#VHF. Protection can be request when and if the content is reinstated. So Why 07:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWAT-TV

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

Topic is not notable. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Unable to meet any bright line tests for SNG. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salted redirect to List of ABS-CBN Corporation channels and stations#VHF Only original programs are originated at ABS-CBN's regional outs and have articles. Nothing else for this to stand on as it produces no other local programming. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. No thought regarding salting or redirects. No prejudice either. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:33, 9 August 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 DZRR. And protect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWAI

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

This topic does not meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. I merged the content to ABS-CBN (see diff [24]). But an editor reverted it (see diff [25]). It doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salted redirect to DZRR It's a translator for another station; we generally don't keep those. Nothing else for this to stand on as it produces no local programming. DZRR could probably be d/s/r'ed to My Only Radio itself as its only original product is local news and a countdown show. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with SALT per Nate. Per WP:NMEDIA, radio "stations" which exist as relay transmitters of another station, and not as standalone originators of at least some of their own programming, get redirects to their parent service and not separate articles as standalone topics. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 4 August 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 Onry Ozzborn. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duo (Onry Ozzborn album)

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM notability criteria. Sources are mostly blogs and routine coverage. - Mr X 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Onry Ozzborn. — TheMagnificentist 09:57, 7 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fos Music

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has valid potential claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC but isn't reliably sourcing them -- every single source present here is either a blog or a podcast, with no evidence of coverage in legitimate media shown at all. As always, a musician does not get an automatic free notability pass, or an exemption from having to be properly sourced, just because passage of NMUSIC has been claimed -- NMUSIC is passed by the quality of sourcing present to support the claims, not by simply making unsourced or improperly sourced assertions. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May not meet WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 09:59, 7 August 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. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nipun Jaswal

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

Non-notable researcher or author, lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. A Google news search for "Nipun Jaswal" or "निपुण जस्वाल" return nothing. If someone could prove that the award is significant to establish notability, I may change my mind. The award of excellence is most certainly not significant enough for inclusion, in my opinion. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GSS, He has got a National award from National Cyber Safety & Security Standards, a joint initiative by National Cyber Safety and MSMEDI,Ministry of MSME, Government of India. The excellence award is very rare. Moreover there are paragraph description about him in the provided news references which are national dailies. BetterSmile:D 09:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

Keep Notable author with 4 books and have many citations on research papers from IEEE, Research gate and references from other notable cyber security books which adhere to #2 WP:AUTHOR Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Rafiqmarbaros (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Rafiqmarbaros: Author of 4 non-notable books how it passes WP:NAUTHOR? There is no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to support WP:GNG either. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Dear GSS bro when i did a check at citations of the book, apart from listing and reviews at google books, i found references at researchgate and IEEE at published papers. I may be wrong about WP:AUTHOR, sorry about that brother. Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was your second edit after registration so I would like to suggest please read WP:RS, WP:GNG and notability guidelines carefully before voting in AfD's or anywhere else. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 11:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage except few mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. --Elton-Rodrigues 15:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep More reliable references seen. Amar Ujala is a leading Newspaper in India. Passes WP:GNG and additionally it also passed WP:AUTHOR mainly 2,3 and 4th point of WP:AUTHOR . passes 2 - He is known for originating new concept WFF. passes 3 - He has created and co-created books that had various editions. passes 4 - He has got National award in his field of activity considering all his contributions BetterSmile:D 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Bettersmiley (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Bettersmiley: The sources incliding Amar Ujala failed to establish notability and many of them are not even reliable. I don't understand on what basis you claim it passes WP:AUTHOR do you have any evidence? GSS (talk|c|em) 17:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is no basis for saying Amar Ujala article failed to establish notability . It very well features the person. Moreover I have mentioned above why he passes WP:NAUTHOR. He is also seen in WorldCat, which is well enough to prove the notability BetterSmile:D 03:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

comment An additional article from Hindustan (newspaper) also added to enhance WP:GNG BetterSmile:D 03:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

WorldCat has nothing to do with notability and I still can't see a single evidence to support WP:AUTHOR. Your link to Hindustan is not working. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment FYI WorldCat is the World's Largest Library Catalog . In the criteria for notability notability it is stated that for any biography,if the person has an entry in the library, Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication is notable.WorldCat being the World's Largest Library Catalog has him listed in it. Along with other criterion here is this added criterion which proves his notability BetterSmile:D 13:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

Really? WorldCat is not a citation source; it's a library holdings catalog. It verifies existence, not "coverage" or notability, or anything else. Being listed in WorldCat really is rather meaningless when assessing notability and WorldCat lists anything that is published. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An additional article from Ajit (newspaper) added along with more content towards notability BetterSmile:D 16:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

Primary sources are not enough to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The subject in question is non-notable and fails WP:AUTHOR, Quantity of books written don't count for notability, I cant see any in depth coverage in the mainstream media about him or his work. FITINDIA 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duck alert
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 11:46, 31 July 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) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Cameron

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

Non-notable businessman. Only substantial independent coverage I can find is this in the Boston Globe but a single source is insufficient. Created by an undisclosed paid editor too. SmartSE (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like self promotion. No inherent notability of being a CEO. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - okay, I'm thinking articles in the Boston Globe and the NYT? But the NYT is a wedding announcement, therefore irrelevant. While the Globe article is nice, searches turned up virtually nothing else which would qualify as in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 4 August 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) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Dehghani

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

Non-notable player, as there's no evidence of his having played in the Iran Pro League (although I can't read or search in his native language, so there might still be). The previous AfD was years ago and about someone with the same name, but patently a different person, but still suggests that a PROD is a bad move. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the established guidelines, and at the age of 19 clearly WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:51, 7 August 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) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean L. Lourensz

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

This subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. He has never played a competitive senior match for a fully professional club, nor has he ever appeared for his national team at senior level, and there's definitely no evidence that he's notable for any other reason. – Pee Jay 08:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls far short of coming anywhere near WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY, also at the age of 18 subject seems too be WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find match reports which mention this footballer, and there is no sign the article would satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Spectre

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

No WP:RS, fails WP:N and appears to be a WP:PROMO for an accountancy firm. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and does reek a bit like an advertisement. Bakilas (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found to suggest that this cartoon character is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, the blogs in question in no way advertise the accountancy firm and that was never my intention. I just wanted more people to have access to this information, as HMRC are behaving poorly and getting away with it. The blogs offer insight in a humorous way but also highlight serious matters at hand. I'll respect whatever you decide. I did not intend to break any rules, I'm new and probably should have asked. JenniferWarr (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Also, I'm happy to remove any mention of the accountancy firm if that helps. JenniferWarr (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JenniferWarr: You haven't done anything wrong. It is just the problem is that there aren't any reliable sources for the character to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. When I came across it, I had hoped to improve it but because I couldn't find the character anywhere else beyond the accountancy firm I can't. If he is featured in a reliable 3rd party sources then it certainly should have an article but until then, there isn't a way it can remain. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok - I've seen it picked up in blogs, Twitter, comments, etc... Maybe I'm just too early. The character's only been about for a few months. Either way, for the time being I'll stick to editing the topics I'm very knowledgable on and perhaps try to set up a page when I have more exp. JenniferWarr (talk) 08:09, 1 August 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 Morly Grey. Remember, there is no need to bring something to AFD if you only want to merge or redirect. So Why 07:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Truth (album)

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

Aside from an Allmusic review, the album has not been covered by reliable secondary sources. Perhaps ~~merge~~ the article with the musician's page. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and start a merge discussion on the article's talk page. Merge seems much preferable to deletion here. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morly Grey. Fails WP:NALBUM. — TheMagnificentist 10:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 02:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A merge discussion is not really necessary since the AllMusic entry is the only independent source I could find for the album when I did a WP:BEFORE search. Redirecting is the usual status quo.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morly Grey per nom. (And that other guy whose username is too complicated for me to quote.) --Ifnord (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morly Grey. Agree with nom regarding lack of need for merge discussion. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5, proven sock —SpacemanSpiff 23:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Pandey

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

Fails WP:ENT. Movie roles seemed small ("Watchman"). Lack of notable editorial coverage. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor, has not done any notable role fails WP:NACTOR for now its WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 09:46, 31 July 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) LibStar (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Rugby League World Cup Final

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

complete duplication of main world cup article content 1989–1992 Rugby League World Cup. and includes information not specifically about the final. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most sports finals have similar intros and information about how teams got to the final. I don't see duplication here, nor the need to include all other RLWCFs in this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained and duplicated almost word for word in the main article.

LibStar (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The finals are often notable from a stand alone perspective. They are not all duplications, the first one I've examined is the 1954 articles - their is nothing in the main article about the Television Continental Exchange or a description in prose of the final. I suspect in many cases, if their is a duplication, then there is too much information in the RLWC main page, and some of that should be removed into the article specifically about the Final. Mattlore (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mattlore. World Cup finals are clearly notable enough for their own article. There is some duplication, but AfD isn't the way to fix this. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 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) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Fooyou Agency

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

I really doubt this subject is something that is notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses Hello, this is 甘大面. I created "Strategic Fooyou Agency" today. As a fictional military organization, it is well-known in China, and I want to share this info with the guys in the whole world, starting from the English version. Thank you very much for your attention and response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 甘大面 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is trivial in nature and has no RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Kierzek.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (Withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean L. Lourensz

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

May not meet notability standards for association football. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominee I took a second look at the article. My bad. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 31 July 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. Icewhiz makes compelling arguments (some of which are resonated in the discussion); the BLP issues (brought out by EM Gregory) are also worth further discussion. At the same time, there is a significantly weighty consensus that is evident towards keeping the article. With no current view on the matter, I would suggest further discussions on the talk page of the article (perhaps even an Rfc) to discuss whether WP:PERP applies on the subject or not. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Ettinger

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

Possibly qualifies for WP:G10 in current form (several issues, see talk), however even if rectified, the subject fails notability due to WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PERP. The subject is primarily notable for being suspected by Israeli authorities and media to be a "ringleader" or "inspiration" of violent Jewish hill-top elements (including being labelled as the "number 1 Jewish terror suspect"). However, subject was never charged let alone convicted for these suspicions. Other people were charged (and in one church attack - convicted) for the 2015 events that led to Ettinger rising to the spotlight. Ettinger, however, was held in administrative arrest for several months before being released, but has not charged prior to or since his release. He does a previous 2012 conviction for a minor charge of collecting (with 4 others) information on military movements, which led to a time served 6 month plea-bargain sentence - however this would not confer notability on Ettinger himself. While widely covered since 2015, this is due to him being labelled as the "number 1 Jewish terror suspect" - which did not actually lead to any formal charges or conviction. Per PERP - A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured - which applies here - since he was not even subsequently charged let alone convicted.Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G10 obviously does not apply: the article is neither poorly sourced not unsourced. As I said on the talkpage, the article is indeed negative in tone, but the underlying sources are also negative in tone (as are other sources I Googled). One can't help but reflect the underlying sources. There are so many sources on Ettinger's ideology and practice that WP:BLP1E does not apply: for instance, see this book which has a big section on Ettinger and Meir Kahane. I suggest the best course of action is to add some responses by Ettinger or people close to him, like his lawyer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ettinger is more famous than many other Israelis who have articles. Also, BLPCRIME does not apply since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE by our definitions. Israeli newspapers alone provide hundreds of articles. With care in attributing opinions, there is no reason at all that a good article can't be written on this person. Zero^talk 08:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a public figure prior to reporting of said suspicions (and administrative arrest)? Is he a public figure via reporting independent of these suspicions? To my knowledge, he hasn't held any official position, and he is allegedly popular in "hilltop youth" circles of a few hundred people at most. The vast majority of reporting and writing I've seen on the subject (in the current article and elsewhere) is based on these suspicions (marking his as "suspect #1") from 2015. Reporting on him pre-2015 doesn't give him notability or public-figure status - it is very sparse - around 10-15 GNEWSHITS - mainly on a single issue and mentioned with other people. post-2015 - reporting is very wide (in Hebrew, outside of English, and even a few books), but all based on the publication of this suspicion (and admin arrest) by Shin-Bet.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um..It's a fundamental premise of analytic philosophy that sentences of the type: 'was A known before A was known' don't make sense. Of course in Zen Buddhism, it would be a useful koan, but it's hard to edit Wikipedia thinking in terms extra-territorial to standard logic.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he were a public-figure prior to being marked as "suspect #1" by Shin-Bet (but not charged or convicted) - then there would be no WP:PERP issue. As evidence of his non-notability before this suspicion: the Jan 2014 Qusra incident (the capture and beating of a group of settlers) was widely reported (at least in Israeli press - was a front-line item) - [26] [27] [28] [29] - none of the Hebrew reports from the day of the incident bother to mention Ettinger by name - and he's photographed (e.g. - [30] [31] [32]) and appears in the video reports in most of the reporting - but none of the reporters in Jan 2014 bothered to mention this was him - instead mostly saying "group of settlers" (in English - Time of Israel does give him a photo-caption - [33] - and nothing else). There is a single Walla! report from 2 days later (9 Jan) which does mention him - but only because he gave a video interview (saying they "were taking a hike" to Hakol Hayehudi) - and they report on the interview - this wasn't picked up by anyone else in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make the slightest difference when he became a public figure. If he is a public figure NOW then WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to him NOW. Zero^talk 16:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided There do seem to be seem serious BLP issues; coverage starts after he is ~~accused~~ of crimes of which he is not convicted. We have an article about one of the crimes - which, interestingly, does not focus on Ettinger; but to have an article about someone who is accused but not convicted is problematic. I also Note that some of the text and many of the articles are about articles of the Hilltop youth as a group, but that they single Ettinger out because of who his grandfather is. Do any of Meir Kahana's other grandchildren (I assume that there are others) have pages? I ask because, while an ancestor like Abraham Lincoln can provide notability to several generations of descendants, in general we only mention ancestors when an individual passes notability for other reasons. (I recently participated in an AfD during which only the name of Jim Carter's grandson James Carter IV (the entire text was deleted, not merged) but the name was redirected to grandpa's article on the grounds that Jimmy IV has had several rounds of publicity, making his name is a useful search term.) I don't see why having Kahana as a grandfather would confer notability when Jimmy Carter doesn't. Mostly, I am troubled by the circularity of the coverage. Ettinger is said to be a "leader" of the Hilltop youth, but they seem to be an ardent but inchoate group with no formal leadership, similar in this to "groups" like Black bloc. On the page Hilltop Youth(which, by the way, should not have a cap for the second word) Ettinger is the sole member listed under #Notable Exponents. Problem is, the coverage in the articles sourcing that section and in this article often singles him out among an array of "hilltop youth" being discussed r accused, on the grounds not of his leadership, but because he is "the grandson of..." all of which seems extremely circular.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ettinger was not accused of any of the major crimes in 2015 (Duma and the church)- others were. He was just suspected (of inspiring/directing, IIRC he did have an alibi for his own whereabouts due to movement restrictions on himself), placed in admin arrest, and subsequently he was not charged. I don't think there is an article on another grandson, though I may be wrong. There is an article on a son (uncle), Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, who is clearly notable on a number of grounds (led the kahane chai branch) and is also dead.Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So he's not even accused of the bluelinked arson attack, although others are. This does appear to prove the point that Ettinger's notability is tenuous, that because of who his grandsire is he provides a handy focus for stories that are actually about an inchoate group of revolting "youth".E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, notability in Wikipedia is determined by coverage in reliable sources. It has nothing whatever to do with whether we think that coverage was justified. Zero^talk 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which sources EMG is reading, but absolutely nobody, including Icewhiz here, is arguing that Ettinger's notability is inherited from his grandfather. Ettinger is not notable because of he is Kahane's grandson; he is notable because there are a million news sources discussing him, his statements, his ideology and his actions. This is the simple reason for Ettinger to have a BLP page, while his siblings don't. Kahane is mentioned because their ideologies and statements share many similarities. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the sources on the page, it seems as though exactly th opposite is true, that is, it it seems as though Ettinger is being singled out from other youth, because his grandfather gives these journalists a better story that they would have if they wrote about other hilltop youths who hold the same opinions and have behaved similarly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the very scant (around 10 GNEWS hits, mostly passing and with others) coverage prior to 2015 was due to him having a famous grandfather (some was limited to Kahane's grandson). Coverage since becoming Jewish suspect #1 in 2015 is mainly about him (Kahane is an anecdote). The idelogical comnection between the Hilltop Youth and Kahane is not such an obvious thing (it has been mentioned, not by all), the roots and idelogy of this movement are quite different (eg the Jewish underground is more relevant) and it is not a Kach offshoot (in terms of present day movements - Lahava, Otzma Yehudit, and other Kach alumni orgs are pretty clear offshoots). The sole question to me, in terms of notability, is whether coverage frome being suspect #1 (without being even charged, and with the cases ending with others being charged and tried) falls foul of PERP - which is an issue on enwiki.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of how Ettinger first came to public attention, he has ridden the wave of fame/notoriety and become a columnist for a right-wing website. He thereby gave up any presumption in favor of privacy. He is clearly notable, regardless of whether he has been convicted of any crime. Extreme care should be taken to ensure that his article always satisfies WP:BLP and doesn't make unfounded assertions, and that it doesn't become a target for POV pushers; depending on the level of activity, a request for pending changes protection may be appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a blog on hakol hayehudi (a fringe site catering to a certain fringe group (hilltop and others) of settlers (contrast with arutz7 which is mainstream settler)) might remove presumption of privacy, but it does not confer notability. He wrote there prior to 2015 - this is not a result of the arrest (it is one of the causes cited in 2015).Icewhiz (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to read more carefully. By writing the blog, Ettinger gave up his privacy. He is notable not because of his blog—such an assertion would be laughable—but because he has been the subject of tens of thousands of news articles around the world. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the blog notable? Because contributing to a non-notable blog doesn't make a person notable, we delete bloggers regularly. Just like we delete most pages about many, probably most, political commentators, journalists, and authors that come to AfD. And we keep very few "political activists" there. Writing on a non-notable blog doesn't make you notable any more than writing political commentary on your Facebook page does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you daft? Look directly above for my reply. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero, Kingsindian, and Malik. --NSH001 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources already on the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate notability, and the arguments for deletion do not address our deletion policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERP is a real problem, one that editors editing keep need to address.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm technically allowed to comment on an I/P AfD, but if the guy is notable for reasons beyond one singular event then I don't see how PERP (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article...) is relevant. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, meets WP:GNG, BLP issues can be raised at BLP/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least trim down the article a lot. ImTheIP (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable because of the massive amount of coverage of him and his ideas in recent years. Of course, the article presents BLP challenges but so do thousands of other BLPs. The solution is ongoing editing by people who understand BLP policy, not deletion. He is not an otherwise non-notable criminal suspect who enjoys a presumption of privacy. He is instead a public figure who advocates quite openly for an extremist political/religious ideology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 8 August 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) 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Roots of Tommy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. gongshow talk 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a spin off CD that came free with a magazine. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:41, 1 August 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 per WP:SOFTDELETE. Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y. K. Raghunatha Rao

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can see some passing mentions of someone with the name who wrote about wood tar and children's health but nothing biographical. Sitush (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please participate in this discussion to achieve consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix Let's Talk 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrki Alakuijala

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

not notable blp. no coverage by independent 3rd part sources -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 10:19, 7 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Scoular

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

So promotional it just needs to be WP:TNT'ed. It had no WP:INLINECITED sources, just a source at the end, which was a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a deadlink. I have tried adding sources, but they don't seem to add up to extensive coverage on Scoular himself, though there are mentions. This has been tagged for notability for 9 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a couple of references, but the best of these (the brief 2010 item from The Globe and Mail) is effectively a local notice, and the two cited reviews only verify that the subject is going about his trade. I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to demonstrate notability, whether by WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:46, 31 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haqiqat-e Afghan Association

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There is an article in Persian, with the same issues - no demonstration of notability, no extensive coverage. This has been tagged for ntability for 9 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If notability cannot be established after nine years, it is highly likely the organization is not notable per WP:OR.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:32, 4 August 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) Lourdes 05:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSC Kristall

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

Contested PROD. This article is presently unsourced, and a search (in which regard I admit I'm limited by an inability to read Russian) simply provides run-of-the-mill information confirming the team's existence, rather than sufficient coverage to prove notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See here. Has significant coverage in Russian. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the source mentioned by the IP editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found enough mentions (in Spanish) to pass GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 11:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not convinced the 2015 Euro Winners Cup is sufficiently notable that winning it is sufficient for the team to be notable, but it seems plausible. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Runtime

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

WP:NOTNEO, WP:ONEDAY. Prod removed by Spawnvc, an editor name strikingly similar to that of the then-blocked creator, Spawnvcdotcom. Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced article describing a basis for billing robot activity. Forum posts indicate there to be a setting of this name on some Kuka robots, but I am seeing nothing to confirm it as a basis utilised in the role described. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 31 July 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Haynes (comedian)

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

Tagged as a problem since September 2015. All sources are primary, and all the ones I could find are one off mentions. Delete. Alizaa2 (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 31 July 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. No rebuttal from nominator despite ping and relist and no other delete comments but one keep comment. So Why 09:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Vocal Institute

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

A school for singers. Questionable notability per WP:GNG, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete Vocal Technique; and written in a mostly promotional tone. It has no reliable sources as footnotes, a bunch of Danish texts that I can't evaluate as references, and a Google News search indicates that the school is occasionally mentioned in articles about singers who attended it, but not covered as such. Sandstein 10:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Sandstein's arguments above: Complete Vocal Institute is a reputable singing institute, and possibly the largest in Denmark in terms of graduating singers per year. Their 3-year Singer/Singing Teacher Diploma Course is ECTS approved. Aside from educating singers and voice teachers they also perform extensive scientific research into the voice. Their research data is publicly available, and they have published several scientific articles. See for instance their articles in the peer-reviewed Journal of Voice: Overdrive and Edge as Refiners of “Belting”? by Dr. Julian McGlashan, Mathias Aaen Thuesen, and Cathrine Sadolin, and Curbing—The Metallic Mode In-between by Mathias Aaen Thuesen, Julian McGlashan, and Cathrine Sadolin. Their research is also cited in many papers, for instance The “Overdrive” Mode in the “Complete Vocal Technique”: A Preliminary Study by prof. Johan Sundberg, ed al.

The referenced articles in the footnotes are mainly in Swedish (not Danish) and refer to two papers from Luleå University of Technology (Sweden), three from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and two from the Royal Music Conservatory of Stockholm (Sweden). And since Sandstein edits the German Wikipedia he'll probably understand this article better than the Swedish ones: Neue Gesangs-Technik aus Dänemark: „Complete Vocal Technique“^[1] in the german journal Musik und Unterricht. The article explains the core principles of Complete Vocal Technique.

The last reference is a conference proceding (in English) from the 8th Pan-European Voice Conference (also known as PEVOC). The PEVOC is an interdisciplinary conference for voice professionals to exchange knowledge about the human voice. PEVOC takes place in different European cities every two years^[2] and is one of the largest conferences for voice professionals in Europe. CVI staff are frequent speakers at voice conferences such as PEVOC, AES, PVC, COST and BACO.^[3] The article on Complete Vocal Institute is as important to have on Wikipedia as any university or music conservatory of repute. Also, since it is a merged article with a previous article on Complete Vocal Technique the article also holds notability as covering a widely used, documented and referenced vocal technique, just like for instance Estill Voice Training. Wikipedia's Deletion Policy states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." So if the main problem with the article is it's references the article should be left up and edited, adding more reliable references, rather than deleting it. --EsbenFrank (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. As per the arguments I listed above, the article definitely holds notability, both as an article about Complete Vocal Institute and about Complete Vocal Technique. It obviously needs to have more reliable sources added, but according to the above there is no shortage of such references. By the way, before you ask about my own bias: I hold an education from CVI, but I have no professional affiliation with CVI otherwise. I am a professional singer, conductor and vocal coach, and currently studying musicology at the University of Copenhagen. --EsbenFrank (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Professor Johan Sundberg, "“Complete Vocal Technique,” or CVT, is an internationally widespread method for teaching voice."^[4]. I think this speaks very clearly of the Notability of at least the section on Complete Vocal Technique! --EsbenFrank (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slight COPRDEPTH issues, but ok via SchoolOutcomes and Esben Frank's paragraph. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:16, 9 August 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. Ritchie's hatnote idea is probably the best solution. So Why 07:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Adams

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appeared in one season, 22 episodes, of 337 total. No notability outside the fictional universe. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The content should just be included on Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Galatz ^Talk 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Galatz: Would you leave a redirect? I ask because this AfD was motivated by my creation of Riley Adams (baseball) and I intend to move that article to the space without the disambiguator after this AfD closes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, in my opinion you would then have Riley Adams (baseball) moved to Riley Adams, but first move Riley Adams to Riley Adams (CSI). After the content is merged redirect it. Judging by What links here there are plenty of pages linked to it, which would need to be cleaned up either way. Most might be from the template, but not all I am sure - Galatz ^Talk 16:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the above discussion, you would need to re-appropriate the baseball player as Riley Adams, then put a hatnote at the top of the article saying this Riley Adams is a minor character listed in Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. There's no point having the additional redirect - cut out the middle man. That leaves us with nothing salvageable in this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:58, 8 August 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. So Why 07:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoylakshmi Chatterjee

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

Can't find any evidence of notability Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference is a mere summary of a series. Nothing suggests that the actress is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to even claim notability. I tried finding something, but she's not even still with the serials mentioned in the articles. --Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 8 August 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 procedural close.

As Smartyllama points out, it is long-standing consensus that such articles are created (cf. Template:Nations at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics). Since they are all pretty much the same, either they all fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:GNG or they don't. An AFD for a single one of them is not helpful however and it will serve no purpose to continue this discussion if the underlying question whether such articles should exist at all is not addressed in general.

@Finnusertop and Mr. Guye: Feel free to start a discussion at the appropriate project talk pages to establish consensus whether such pages should exist at all (probably best in form of an RFC). Then - if consensus is in favor of deletion - they can all be handled consistently without having to start a discussion for each such article here.

Regards So Why 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics

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

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't it a little too soon? Even if it is approaching, if you can hardly say anything reliable, can it truly pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For these major events, every nation gets a stand-alone article. Take a look at the countries in the template for {{2017 World Championships in Athletics Participating Nations}}, for example. I don't think this is too soon, as it's going to happen in 4 days from now. In other words, this AfD will have to last at least 7 days, and by then, this stub could easily be expanded with the full results, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IAAF has released the entry lists, and there is a document on the official website that is very reliable. If the article is maintained, I can work on it to reach the standards of the other country articles. Wallinson (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every nation gets a standalone article for these things. There's no reason to pick this one off specifically. Also, even if it were too soon now, by the time this AfD closes, the championships will have started and it will clearly not be too soon. I suggest withdrawal. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Lugnuts and Smartyllama: which notability guidelines says that every nation should get a stand-alone article for events like this? Can you please point out the specific guideline. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: keep votes have not shown the sources that establish WP:GNG, or that the article meets any other notability guideline. The article possibly also fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 6 August 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) Lourdes 01:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Baby....

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

I know it's a GA, but only a few other individual Eastenders episodes have pages. KMF (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're just as trivial:

I know one is a GA and another is on DYK, but these are still unacceptable fancruft. KMF (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Each of the four articles (and particularly the GAs) has more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. I don't see any policy-based argument for deletion. Layzner (Talk) 05:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Further to Layzner's "...don't see any policy-based argument...", I don't see any policy or guideline anywhere that would call for its deletion. This, while GNG calls for it to be kept. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Editors have worked so hard on each on these so for you to believe they are "unacceptable fancruft" is quite insulting. The fact that one of these articles have reached GA suggests that it is the exact opposite to trivia and has a strong development core. To add, I agree with the above user - there is no policy-based argument for deletion. Soaper1234 - talk 05:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (though should be noted I am the creator of three of the articles). The argument for deletion is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Individual episodes can be notable. — anemone projectors 07:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References establish notability as programs covered in detail by critics and other writers (and shown to be historically important television). Articles on episodes of other TV shows are often kept at AfD, if they are covered in sufficient detail in reliable sources, and it is well established that a TV episode can be notable. Not every EastEnders episode is notable, certainly, but some are, just as not every episode of Dallas is notable, but Who Done It (Dallas) is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG Matt's talk 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Soar over the threshold of notability. I find the all-or-nothing attitude towards episodes disturbing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a snow keep close. This article is way over the line in terms of notability. I know the nom is a deletionist, but really, these are decent articles easily passing GNG with poor AfD reasons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nominator's claim that the above are examples of "unacceptable fancruft" is unsupported. There is a complete lack of an argument in the nomination. It seems that this is more motivated by the nominator being a a deletionist than anything really concrete or based in policy. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for Episode 5276 given FourViolas' comment below, as it meets part of the criteria for a speedy keep. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Ignoring WP:IDONTLIKEIT (fwiw, I don't much either), the argument seems to be "these members of category X pass GNG, but other members of category X do not, therefore we should delete these." That's not even WP:OTHERSTUFF, let alone policy-based. FourViolas (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Episode 5276 needs to be a speedy keep per criterion 6 because, as the nom noted, it is currently linked from the Main Page as a DYK. FourViolas (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I see no grounds for deletion on policy. DrStrauss talk 17:04, 31 July 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. ...presuming Scberry's rationale is towards keeping the article, combined with the nom being blocked as a sock. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Reid

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

I am bring the AfD because I am not sure he meets article eligibility on his own. Notability is not inherited, and he seems to only be recognized with and/or because of others. Kellymoat (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC) blocked sock puppet Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I will be keenly interested in the arguments for deletion, as I am unclear what makes this artist ineligible for inclusion. He has been a band-leader for many years, and most bluegrass musicians are primarily participants in ensembles. That, and the fact that he is cited on so many other artists' pages, are my rationales for creating the article. Thanks for reading! Scberry (talk) 13:36 16 July 2017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have been around the block a few times. The very first hit in a news search describes him as "award-winning". (I wonder if he gets confused people going to gigs and saying "Play Walk on the Wild Side!") Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article so passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 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 Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. So Why 09:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not In my name (protest In India)

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

Per wikipedia is not current events, and wikipedia is not news.

The "not in my name" joke/protest is irrelevant of most of the article anyway. cow vigilantism already has an article. The Prime Minister's statement was regarding the mob lynching, not about this "Not In my name (protest In India)" (underlined text is addition) "backchodi" (word used in article) which literally means "fucking by mouth", or "senseless fucking/fucker". No need to trust me, here is corroboration. Also, improper reference to ISI (Pakistan's external intel agency). Addition: My bad. The striked out content was added by an IP vandal after the articles was created. I was busy with WO:BEFORE outside wikipedia, didnt take a look at article's history.

Requesting for speedy action. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about a statement by a celebrity. There were donzens of celebs commenting about these ongoing incidents, and more are commenting. It can be mentioned in an appropriate article. No need to create these new articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Has generated a lot off coverage and has sparked a protest in NCR122.163.68.187 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note to closing admin: Above IP has made exactly 0 edits anywhere else. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. It's been covered in press recently but WP:NOTNEWS applies, in the absence of evidence of this movement's continued importance (and it should be noted that not all the sources cited in the article are primarily about the article subject, but some e.g. BBC coverage refer to anti-Muslim vigilantism more general). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. I haven't done a huge amount of research, but from what I can see, the sources in the article (plus, another I found in The Huffington Post) are probably enough to meet WP:RS. On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT argue against keeping this as a stand-alone article. In any case, whether it's kept or redirected, the title should be just Not In my name, no need for the disambiguating parenthetical phrase. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with merging into Cow vigilante violence. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Action League

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

Lack of significant coverage of this organization in independent sources beyond trivial mentions. ~~Article appears written mainly for promotional reasons.~~ —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 21:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elephant Action League is doing really interesting work related to wildlife conservation. No one else is doing this kind of undercover investigative work and that is why I wrote the article. I have added a number of references that better identify, from outside/significant sources, what the organization has been involved in. Please reconsider deleting this article. --Kasvt44 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Kasvt44[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. However, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require independent sources that cover the topic in detail. So far all the sources I've seen are about the WildLeaks project or Crosta himself, the founder of the group. All of them mention the League only in passing; I haven't found significant independent coverage of the group's goals, activities, social impact, etc. I'm just not seeing evidence of notability; the one potential exception being the Men's Journal profile of Crosta, which mentions some of the group's earlier work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantive coverage of the organization's activities in The Guardian ~~[34]~~, The Independent (South Africa) [35], plus the coverage already mentioned in the article. Notable, and the article is not excessively promotional. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian piece is by Crosta himself, and so is not an independent source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duly noted. Other Guardian coverage of the organization's activities includes [36] and [37]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm still not seeing detailed coverage of the organization itself – to me this (and the cited sources in the article) is mostly WP:NOTNEWS material: EAL is described as a group that did an investigation/published a report, while Crosta provides some quotes to journalists about said investigation or report. In none of these articles is EAL the main subject. Where's the in-depth coverage of the organization, its history, its social impact, etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Works

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

fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG The sources are insufficient: 1: herald sun article doesn't mention the subject 2: passing mention 3: appointment announcement about a company employee 4: passing mention 5: passing mention 6: press release 7: press release 8: press release 9: passing mention Domdeparis (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. As per nom, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5, G11, TOS violation, content is irrelevant. Rentier (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Rentier: I don't quite get your comment. What does violation of TOS mean and I don't think the article creator has been blocked there doesn't seem to be anything on their user page. I agree that is was a possible candidate for G11 but I wasn't 100% sure hence my choice of AFD. Domdeparis (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I would have sent it to AfD too if I wasn't aware of over 140 similar accounts/articles. And my comment couldn't be understood without context, so sorry about that. The article and its creator belong, beyond reasonable doubt, to this group of accounts linked to a previously blocked account (hence G5), which, again beyond reasonable doubt, has been used for undisclosed paid editing (hence Terms of Service violation). Curiously, being at AfD allowed this article to remain live for a few more days, because people have CSDed recent articles from this set. Rentier (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and has not established notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G5, G11, TOU violation as appears to be written by a paid sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 August 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. Apart from the nominator, no one argued for outright deletion but there was also no consensus to redirect or merge. Both can be proposed on the talk page though. So Why 11:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia de San Félix (El Pino)

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

Article has remained empty for years except an amateur photo. This minor village church fails GNG and WP:NFEAT. — JFG ^talk 10:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The Spanish article (which gives a different date) has two more photos and details of architect, builder, and decoration, but most Spanish churches have such decoration and I would need convincing that this is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eighteenth-century buildings are pretty much always considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Europe. Or else everybody in my town lives in a notable house…

— JFG ^talk 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, in Europe too. See WP:GEOFEAT. I'm British, all our (very many) 18C buildings are listed and all are deserving of articles. Same in Spain. And I very much doubt that everyone in your town lives in a house that old. But historic churches are even more deserving of articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spain doesn't appear to be so good at listing its historic buildings as some countries (we're spoiled by our protectors of national heritage in my country, and a good thing too). But this one is a listed building. Sixth entry on the list. Meets the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT without a shadow of a doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how Spain documents its monuments, this particular article has no sourced information; it has no information at all, just a picture. I asserted that it was not notable, although I understand that as a listed monument it gets presumed notability. Fine but it's still an empty article… is that enough? To Necrothesp, yes in my town a good 80% of houses are pre-18th century; mine was built in the 16th. Only a few buildings are considered locally notable, the usual suspects: church, castle, houses bundled in fortified walls and a few mansions that used to be owned by nobility. I could probably go snap a few pictures of the old town and create empty articles; would that make the depicted houses automatically notable for Wikipedia? I don't think that makes sense. But thanks for the Spanish source saying this church is a listed building. The article in Spanish cites the monument registry (no other source demonstrating RS coverage btw) BUT it's not the same building on the picture! What shall we do now? — JFG ^talk 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:STUB. No problem with that. I would agree with you that, despite WP:GEOFEAT, it can be difficult to make a case for notability for an ordinary house (although again, some countries are better at documenting the history of historic buildings and listing them than others), but a church? Yes, they're notable. There is always something you can write about a church. The issue is not what has been written about it on Wikipedia, but what can be written about it. The difference in photos is indeed odd, but the one on Spanish Wikipedia is the actual church (as you can see by looking on Google Streetview). I've therefore substituted it for the other one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the previous photo is actually a photo of the chapel in the neighbouring village of Pola del Pino. It's been wrongly captioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me... see the interior photos. --do ncr am 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asturias; not every church is notable, and this one misses the mark. The article does not establish notability and lists no sources. I was not able to find sufficient sources, and none of the "Keep" voters have offered any. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's purely an opinion that contradicts a guideline! It exists and it is a building heritage-listed by a country that does not list that many buildings. Even if Spain did list many buildings it would still pass WP:GEOFEAT, but in this case it clearly passes it with flying colours! And what on earth would be the point of redirecting to Asturias? That would achieve nothing whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from OP – I appreciate that the wrong picture was replaced, but until somebody decides to write more than WP:ITEXISTS (oh yeah, and it's listed), this page has no point. — JFG ^talk 21:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect and merge to the Spanish village, El Pino (Aller)? That would solve the issue elegantly, just adding photos and saying "The village has a listed church, Iglesia de San Félix, founded in 1751." — JFG ^talk 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a look at WP:STUB! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Churches more than 200 years old are almost always notable. The fine religious icons inside the church also indicate its notability. Sadly, this article is still unsourced, which would favor deletion. Can somebody rescue this? Bearian (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although two editors experienced in writing about horse-related topics thought there was enough coverage to write a full article, nobody else did, and the general consensus is he is only known for one event. If somebody wants to create a redirect to Great Communicator, that can be done separately. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Ackel

AfDs for this article:

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

part owner of one notable horse is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with the article for the horse itself, Great Communicator. He was also the trainer of the horse, and the Los Angeles Times article which was linked on the Thad Ackel page is a fine source. Other than that article, I can't find any decent sources on Ackel that aren't related to Great Communicator. Gilded Snail (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was the horse trainer of The Great Communicator; that's the notable bit. We are working on come "case law" for these racing articles, so to speak, and I think this is a good example of a "floor" for notability. It is true that his fame is linked to one horse, but one could say much the same of Lucien Laurin (who trained Secretariat). Under the guidlines of NHORSERACING, his wins were in Grade I races and among those was a Breeders' Cup win, which is a prestige win at the highest level, (see equibase.) so sketchy as the article is, we must note that he won in the late 1980s, which is pre-Google, so source content is a bit trickier to locate. I did see him covered in neutral third-party sources here (discussing that he had become an owner), in the LA Times as a trainer of "fleeting fame", but a pretty solid interview. The Great Communicator article is also a bit short, but both of them independently meet our guidelines for adequate notability in the SNG plus have sufficient coverage to meet the policy of WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the trainer of a horse like Great Communicator confers notability; being an owner really doesn't. This guy won several G1 races, including the Breeders Cup, one of the biggest races in America. The notability rule for racehorse trainers or jockeys says that one G1 win is enough but more are preferred. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Communicator; not independently notable and Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, "two similar articles" isn't a notability argument (we have separate articles for a lot of teams who are notable as a team, by analogy, note that Stiller and Meara also have Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara) If consensus is for a merge (which I oppose), I'd go the other direction. The horse and the trainer/owner are of roughly equal notability. But the horse's career is finished, the human will be around a while.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Training one marginally notable horse and then exiting the business does not confer notability. See the aptly titled LA Times article "Fame Was Fleeting for These Three Trainers". The other two don't have pages either. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He trained one name horse, and having that connection does not confer notability. Being a trainer does not automatically convey notability, either, unless you train a once-in-a-human-lifetime horse such as Secretariat. From what I can see, there was one featured article about him, which does not meet the standard of significant coverage in multiple sources. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 7 August 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. ...with a suggestion to editors frequenting the article to spruce up the sources within the article, as pointed out by even the editors !voting keep or neutral. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Besser

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

Fails WP:BIO. Three sources are cited. One is the subject's self-published faculty profile, a second is the subject's CV. Potential conflict of interest in that the primary editor is someone who has appeared as a guest lecturer in the subject's classes. Ejg930 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Here are some potential sources:

"Howard Besser (Ph.D. 1997), Activist Archivists, and Digital Preservation". UC Berkeley School of Information.
"#MCN50 Voices: Interview with Howard Besser - MCN". MCN. 21 May 2017.
"Archiving from the Bottom Up: A Conversation with Howard Besser | The Signal". blogs.loc.gov. 10 October 2014.
"Digital Pioneers". digitalpioneers.library.du.edu.

These might work per WP:Interview. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep If the Library of Congress Digital Preservation Feature Series lists him as one of the Digital Preservation Pioneers and says that "Howard Besser is best known as an often-quoted visionary", sources ought to exists somewhere. Mduvekot (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neural Has a GS h-index of only 20 in a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Besser is not best known for his scholarship; primarily for his consultation and teaching. He is very well-known and a pioneer within these areas. --Lquilter (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC) edited to add: I'm not sure I spoke correctly there. More correct to say that I can't speak to his scholarship, but in general I take h-index with a grain of salt. It focuses on individual papers, which is useful in some fields but not all, and doesn't take into account other really significant metrics of impact, such as recognition by inclusion on review panels, grants, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lquilter (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published academic Rhadow (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think content such as this profile, this book review, and this keynote-speaker profile goes some way towards notability, but I would be more confident if such sources were less sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 6 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Stempel

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

fails WP:NACADEMIC Derek Andrews (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5 states: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education". It says right in the lede that the subject of the article was a distinguished professor at Ohio University. Article is terribly formatted and needs a clean up like whoa but it does meet WP:NACADEMIC. A Train^talk 17:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and under NAcademic point as A Train.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:27, 8 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey at the 2013 East Asian Games

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

Non-notable sports event. Unreferenced as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these articles make any claim of notability or show any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino coaches of foreign national basketball teams

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

Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT. I don't see how such a list is notable, considering we don't have articles like Brazilian coaches of national football teams. Seems to be mostly trivia at best. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information would be better placed as a section at Basketball in the Philippines. Asturkian (talk) 09:32, 7 August 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) Lourdes 01:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haydee Ong

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

Non-notable person. Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully but strongly beg to disagree, she is a national team coach of one of the primary sports in the country. She is also a coach in the UAAP, a collegiate league that is widely followed nationally in the country.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Hmlarson (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passer WP:GNG --SuperJew (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National team coach, clearly notable. Montanabw^(talk) 05:10, 4 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wallet (app)

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

An app that fails WP:NSOFT. Lacks references to independent, reliable sources. No historical or technical significance. Mduvekot (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that app is non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtx (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. Thought I had a NYtimes hit, but it was for a different app. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:25, 8 August 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 Move to Draft:University of Birmingham Boat Club. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Birmingham Boat Club

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

Unreferenced sports club article, doesn't provide any notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the article I could find both first party and second party sources with more here. The article should be given a chance to improve before being deleted. --The Ivory Cowboy 🤠 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do realise, the first source refers to an entirely different club from the University of Warwick, the second is from the universities own newspaper (not independent) and doesn't really focus on the club at all, and the third is not really a reliable source at all. Additionally, google news turns up nothing. I'm usually an advocate for keeping club articles, but Birmingam really doesn't meet the requirements Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: not ready for the main space yet but there are more than enough sources to pass GNG. They just need putting in! DrStrauss talk 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
draftify per the Dr. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:23, 8 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Rosete

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

Completely unremarkable working actor. Originally proposed for deletion, but User:Neptune's Trident (the article creator) added some low quality references and removed the tag. This is connected to a long running promtional effort on behalf of J. C. Macek III, who produced a film in which Jose Rosete appears. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; references are a joke Pariah24 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, those really are some terrible references. None of them are actually about the article subject; for example the New York Times link is just a (bot-generated?) filmography with no reviews or profile. It may look well-referenced at a glance but this is effectively an unsourced BLP. A Train^talk 13:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, full disclosure, I created this article, and yes, the references could be better, but looking at it now I think it could still be improved, I originally thought maybe delete but changing my vote to keep for what it is worth. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Trident, if you can dredge up some reasonable sources before the end of the week, I'll happily change my position. A Train^talk 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These sources do not establish notability. They mention the subject but none are actually about the subject. agtx 19:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IDC about the quality of the refs, I checked for GNG. So far I don't believe he passes, but I am willing to wait till the end of the week to see if author can improve.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:20, 8 August 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.

^ Musik und Unterricht 121/2015
^ http://pevoc.org/about.php
^ http://cvtresearch.com/conferences/
^ Sundberg, Johan; Bitelli, Maddalena; Holmberg, Annika; Laaksonen, Ville (2017-03-24). "The "Overdrive" Mode in the "Complete Vocal Technique": A Preliminary Study". Journal of Voice. 0 (0). doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.02.009. ISSN 0892-1997. PMID 28347616.

[1] ttp://daveberta.ca/2016/12/alberta-senate-nominee-elections/

[2] ttps://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/independent-advisory-board-for-senate-appointments.html

[3] Musik und Unterricht 121/2015

[4] ttp://pevoc.org/about.php

[5] ttp://cvtresearch.com/conferences/

[6] Sundberg, Johan; Bitelli, Maddalena; Holmberg, Annika; Laaksonen, Ville (2017-03-24). "The "Overdrive" Mode in the "Complete Vocal Technique": A Preliminary Study". Journal of Voice. 0 (0). doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.02.009. ISSN 0892-1997. PMID 28347616.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]