Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 March	24 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Rinkeby riots[edit]

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

A minor event that lacks encyclopedic relevance or long-term societal impact. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:NOTNEWS applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per fact that this was part of a bigger issue of riots in Swedish suburbs at that time and present. Good sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources can obviously be found in abundance in the Swedish press, but this needs to be part of a larger article on social problems and violence in Swedish suburbs (or something like that). In isolation, an article like this has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Hegvald (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; briefly mentioned in the Rinkeby article already and a sentence or two which is RS cited could be added therein. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable outside of just "immigrant-related crime." I don't think it needs its own page, but I agree that it could be briefly mentioned in the Rinkeby article. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a modest expand, source. Riot was widely covered at the time (in 2010 a riot in Sweden was novel and shocking) and widely covered again in the context of the 2017 Rinkeby riots and Trump's remarks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added an empathetic perspective on these riots form recent book by nonviolent social justice advocate George Lakey here: [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note ~~that Lakey may be correct about this riot by immigrant youth being the first such riot in Sweden.~~ Certainly it is part a growing series of immigrant neighborhood riots in Sweden, and as the apparant earliest in this series, it gains significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lakey doesn't say that it was the first in Sweden, not even that it was the first in Stockholm, only that it was "in recent years". This article on the Swedish Wikipedia list a number of riots, though not all are youth riots. The first such that I found was The student riot in Lund 1793 and there have been a number of notable riots in recent years. So, there is no notability for being the first of series. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wow, there have been a lot or recent riots by immigrant youth in Sweden. at least as far back as the 2009 Malmö Davis Cup riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that not only academic books such as Artifacts and Allegiances: How Museums Put the Nation and the World on Display, University of California Press by Peggy Levitt; but also more popular accounts such as Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right-and How We Can, Too, by activist George Lakey, Melville House Publishing, are usually regarded as strong arguments supporting notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, certainly, international news coverage of a riot 7 years after it happened meets an important standard of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Ongoing coverage during rioting in Rinkeby in 2013 and again in 2017 sparked renewed coverage of the 2010 riots by press around the world. The fact that thousands of people were prompted to visit this page at the time of the 2017 Rinkeby riots shows the utility to our users of keeping articles on riots past. In fact, noting that this page was created not in 2010, but in 2013 makes it highly probably that this riot came to creator's attention due to the fact that this 2010 event was widely covered by the media in 2013.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A notable riot is something bigger (bigger events, bigger coverage in media) like 2013 Stockholm riots. So, as per "Wikipedia is not news", I think we should ~~delete this page and~~ add the information to "background" of "2013 Stockholm riots". Kavas (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We follow sources in determining notability; in this case, news coverage in English-language searches has been global, with a major wave of coverage of this 2010 even in February 2017. In addition to coverage in sources like the book discussed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion to "delete this page and add the information to" is irregular. Normal procedure would be Redirect and Merge in order to WP:PRESERVE both the usefulness of the search term "2010 Rinkeby riots" , (gSearch: [2]), I continue to think article should be kept on the grounds of coverage that has been global, ongoing and in-depth, but if it is to be merged, a better target might be to a title like: Rinkeby riots, 2010, 2013, 2017 accomplished by merging this article with 2017 Rinkeby riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to Redirect and Merge after reading this. Kavas (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just a point of etiquette: when changing an iVote at AfD, it is usual to ~~your original iVote~~. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, but I think this content should be merged with other similar articles under some appropriate title. --Hegvald (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have added three blue-linked analysts giving post-game analysis of this riot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the mention in the book is about one sentence; the other two analysts appear to be discussing the immigrant rioting in general, not this specific event, unless I'm mistaken. I still don't see how this particular riot stands out and why it should have a stand-alone entry. To preserve article history, perhaps it could be redirected to 2017 Rinkeby riots? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Levitt and Quinn cite this riot specifically, and discuss it in the context of immigrant rioting not "in general" but very specifically in Sweden in recent years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Although Nom and the early iVoters above saw a very brief article with 3 sources [3] I have expanded the article significantly. I did not attempt to find Swedisn sources, rather, the article is sourced ot international coverage of this riot the year it occurred, a second round of coverage in 2013, and a third in 2017, in addition to books. I assume that an editor working in Swedish would find more discussion, but I do think that the article as it now stands passes all normal standards, and is, both encyclopedic and useful as documenting an early example of the problems of immigrant integration now confronting Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like something sourced and sufficiently notable. This page could be merged with 2017 Rinkeby riots if there are sources covering them as related events. My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets simplest of standards Cllgbksr (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sracic Joseph[edit]

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

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

It appears like Sracic Joseph does not meet WP:GNP. Dolotta (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have almost any valid claim of notability. bojo | talk 23:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this odd article created by an SPA / new user appears even to have the subject's name backwards - should be Joseph Sracic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by number of colors[edit]

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

This list consists of original research, is unencyclopedic, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No sources are given and the counts seem to be based on the specific images used in Wikipedia. Many of these flags can be rendered with a variable number of colors, especially the ones that include seals. Regardless, this is not a topic covered by reliable sources (other than listing the colors of simple flags), and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Subject fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:V. I feel bad, it's a pretty article, quite colorful, and someone obviously put some work into it. But unfortunately it really is non-notable trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Significant sources have been added. I am not sure they address the subject of the article in sufficient depth to pass GNG, but the article is no longer a glaring WP:V fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I think this is just a rehash the already keep'd AfD for the sister article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by color combination (which is also in the widely used Template:Lists of flags infobox). The complaint that there aren't sources given is fair, but that's just a task for cleanup. This is topic is about as easy to source unambiguously and definitely as they come (although tedious). The reason it doesn't have sources is likely because nobody contributing to it thought something as plainly obvious as how many colors a flag has needed a source. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- Edit: As an addition to this. Looking a bit more into the sourcing. If you click through on most of the flags the colors are sourced there, e.g. here, here and here. I did find some articles like e.g. the Hungarian flag which on cursory reading seem to lack a source about the flag being a tricolor flag (even though that's patently obvious, but whatever, I guess nothing's too obvious to cite). But just to note that we don't have some endemic problem where Wikipedia is claiming that certain flags have 2-3 colors and we have *no* source for it. We just don't have it in this particular list, you have to click through to the flag articles. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with the foregoing. And when "original research" is really just the rearrangement of material already in well-sourced Wikipedia articles, as is generally the case here, it's really not any more "original research" than illustrating something with a picture originally posted to illustrate a different topic is.. --Haruo (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Vexillology typically defines flag colors very precisely, so the nominator's claim that color count may be wrongly based on Wikipedia pictures is irrelevant: if a particular WP picture does not reflect the official color arrangement of a flag, then the picture must be updated, not the color count. There are very precise sources for all flags, and most flag articles already have links to appropriate sources about the flag's design and color composition, including meaning and historicity. Finally, the list is not "indiscriminate" and it does no harm to people uninterested in the topic, while being a useful resource to readers who have a practical need for finding flags by color, or simply being curious. — JFG ^talk 18:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, not "indiscriminate". Number of colors in a particular flag is generally not vague. Sources can be added. RoCo^(talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge - @Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, JFG, and Rollingcontributor: For all of you claiming that the number of colors is easy to source, please show me a source for our claim that the standard flag of Costa Rica consists of 8 colors (or any number for that matter). Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not claiming or assuming that the number of colors for any given flag is trivial to source. I was just pointing out that there's certainly a lot of cases where we can 100% get a completely reliable source that there's an exact number of colors in a given flag. What I don't understand about your argument is the assumption that just because we can't get a reliable source on some number of flags that the entire list is worthless and should be deleted in its entirety. It would be like saying that we can't have a List of sovereign states and dependencies by area list just because presently we can't come to a consensus on the exact political status of the Ukraine or Russia because of Crimea, and thus don't know how big those two countries are, and by extension the entire list is worthless and there's no point in having it at all. I entirely reject that argument as silly. It might be the case that the number of colors in a flag like Costa Rica's is uncited or just unknowable, but then it can just be listed as such in the article. I.e. as some fuzzy range of colors, or "these are flags where there's no consensus on the number of colors, but it's at least X and less than Y" or something like that. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari: The flag of Costa Rica (used by government for official purposes) has 3 colors.^[1]^[2]^[3]. Whether the colors of the coat of arms (or any other symbol) should be included as a part of the flag can be sought through community discussion. Costa Rica also makes a peculiar case in this regard as private citizens are forbidden from using the flag with the symbol.^[4] According to one award-winning^[5] survey^[6], the colors in the symbols were excluded from the number of colors in the flags. It is completely possible to mention whatever consensus has been achieved, in the article, and to find sources for the same. Almost every country I've ever heard of has atleast one source mentioning the colors in it, sometimes from the government directly.

References

^ www.fireflymedia.cz. "Costa Rica | Flags of countries". flagpedia.net. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
^ "Costa Rica Flag - World Flags 101 - Costa Ricans Flags". www.worldflags101.com. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
^ "Costa Rica Flag colors - Costa Rica Flag meaning history". costaricaflag.facts.co. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
^ "Costa Rica". flagspot.net. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
^ "Colors of Flags". www.crwflags.com. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
^ "Vexistats" (PDF).

RoCo^(talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollingcontributor and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: Having seals in flags is pretty common. It looks like about a third of the flags in the current list have seals or other complicated graphics. How do you propose that those flags be dealt with (in a way that conforms with WP:V)? It seems that RoCo is suggesting that the seals be ignored (or sometimes ignored?). Any thoughts on that? Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: Didn't know proposing community discussion meant suggesting the seals be ignored. Coming to WP:V, reiterating what I told right above, flags of almost all countries have at least one source mentioning the colors in it. I believe members of WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology will be better able to propose and proceed with the manner of classification of flags with seals and other symbols.RoCo^(talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollingcontributor: Mentioning colors is not the same thing as stating how many colors a flag contains. Without a plan to address this problem, I still favor deleting the article, as it seems unlikely to actually get fixed. Looking at the talk page, the discussions are full of original research; not a single source has ever been mentioned in the article's 13 year history. Instead of meeting my challenge, you just chose a different version of the flag. How about Nicaragua, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala? There are no sources stating how many colors those flags contain because the number is variable depending on how the seal is rendered. Doesn't that seem like a major problem with this list (that is potentially unresolvable)? Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now this article is completely unsourced and fails WP:V. Sources are not optional and the article cannot be kept if none are added. Also there is no evidence of notability for this subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my move to Neutral at the top of the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we care what colors each flag has? Or how many? Or whether the green in Equatorial Guinea's flag is light or dark? (Or "tree" -- really? What color is a tree? Which tree?) Why is it encyclopedic to compile such a list? How many readers will consult WP to find out how many colors the Mexican flag has, when they can simply look at the flag? This is an exercise in keenly observing the obvious. We all have a finite amount of editing time; every minute spent on this is a minute that could have been spent improving the encyclopedia. Surely the editors in question can find something more useful to work on. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DoctorJoeE: Not sure if you know about Vexillology, but flag colors are defined precisely according to it. Also, how many readers would want to google 200 flags to check the colors in each one for mere curiosity, let alone a project? Not many I presume. RoCo^(talk) 20:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, why would someone need to check the colors in 200 flags? I'm not a vexillologist (obviously), nor am I familiar with what those folks do on a daily basis -- or how this article could help them do it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As it is the study of flags, the reasons could be many. For instance, the number of colors could be related to the history of a nation and how it was symbolically represented in a flag. The number of colors could also be used in observation of trends (See 'Vexistats' pdf below). It is certainly significant for the study. RoCo^(talk) 08:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - This all seems rather academic since the article STILL does not cite a single independent reliable secondary source. WP:V is not optional and there is zero evidence of notability. Every word above is neither here nor there as long as this remains the situation. If the article remains unsourced it can't be kept. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. There is a much more meaningful and encyclopedic article that exists, List of flags by color combination which specifies colour combinations. The number of colours per flag is just indiscriminate fluff. Ajf773 (talk)
Keep The main problem seems to be the lack of verification. Well, surely the verification is a picture of the flag itself? As long as the picture is accurate according to the country's criteria for their own flag, then that verifies the colours (and hence the number of colours). If there are problems with any images, causing innacuracies in this list, then that means that the image needs to be corrected. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem is suitability, ie whether it qualifies for WP:LISTN and does not appear to be in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because a list is verifiable doesn't make it encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually what is being described by Phantomsteve is pretty much a definition of Original Research and it is a big no no on here. ~~Beyond which we STILL have no indication of notability. The bottom line is that completely unsourced articles are not allowed here. Period. This is not complicated folks.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So now we have some RS, from which we learn that the number of colors per flag appears to be on the rise, perhaps due to improvements in flag manufacturing technology and changing cultural preferences. With all due respect, so what? And there are still the problems of notability and original research. My vote remains unchanged. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOT. Narky Blert (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Either one is sufficient to delete the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because we can [organize a list of something according to some characteristic] doesn't mean we should, [especially if that characteristic is not categorically discrete such as color, weight, attractiveness, odor, etc.). Neither can I see any useful reason for having this list— who would want to read it? Why? (Or how about "List of flags by last name of person credited with being president of the corresponding nation when that flag was first used at a football game"? "Reductio ad absurdum"). KDS4444 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a close call, but the strongest argument advanced upthread is that the article fails WP:LISTN and has original research concerns. Neither of these substantial issues in the article can be resolved easily, even if you threw 500 sources at it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As mentioned by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, this seems to be pretty similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_flags_by_color_combination, which was kept. This article is fairly straightforward, and it seems that sources could likely be found for most flags, beyond just looking at them. Lists like List of flags by color combination and List of flags by color seem to generally be accepted, so I don't see why this article wouldn't, and that also makes me disagree with the notion that no one would ever want to read this list. If those lists would have a reader base, I imagine this article would as well. This list is straightforward and presents accurate information in a useful way. bojo | talk 23:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I voted keep above, but for those that voted delete I think something that would clarify this whole thing is: Could you please clarify whether you think your arguments to delete this also applies to deleting List_of_flags_by_color_combination (which as noted was already discussed before), and if it doesn't, what you think the critical difference is between the two? Furthermore Template:Lists of flags has (excluding per-country lists) 20 additional lists, e.g. lists of flags by aspect ratio, date of adoption etc. To what extent does your deletion argument apply / not apply to some of those other lists? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article for deletion for two reasons: Original research and unencyclopedic content. List of flags by color combination also suffers from those issues, but not as much as this article does. I think the other lists are mostly OK. Kaldari (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least some of the concern regards the question of WP:OR. The other article being compared here did not have those concerns. Just because one article is similar does not mean we keep another like it for the same reasons. WP:OSE. I've not decided yet, but if there is OR, then it should be deleted. If you want it kept, clean up the article, provide WP:reliable sources to prove WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm really not that strong on list notability policies, but this seems like a (oh-no, he's going to say that word that you're not supposed to say in AfDs) useful and (oh-no, again) interesting way to present this information. WP:IAR, maybe, but I think this is a keeper. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redefine the scope so it's national flags (for example). This is currently just a mess of any old flags with no (clear) inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. KaisaL (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Soulja the Realest[edit]

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

subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young soulja the realest (February 2016) -- John of Reading (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly some notability there, but not enough to justify an entire article, per WP:MUSICBIO, as mentioned. bojo | talk 22:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Sources are mostly aggregators or stores (e.g. iTunes, MTV, MusicBrainz) and several sites that wouldn't count as reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED covers the rest. KaisaL (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G4 if (as I expect) the content is similar to the previous page that was nuked at AfD. Tagged accordingly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EatZi's[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. As the company has apparently failed, situation will not improve John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think the company has "failed". They currently have 6 locations. Some of their locations have closed, but they seem to definitely still be kickin'. That being said, there doesn't seem to be almost any independent sources to show that they are notable as a company. bojo | talk 23:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have been trying to update the page the last few days. Some of my writing had a promotional tone. The article keeps being reverted instead of meaningful edits. I have verifiable sources. Most are local newspapers in Dallas, then national news with the store closures and Brinker statements.^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4]^[5] ^[6] Jeffdnfg (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2002/12/09/daily50.html
^ "Eatzi's Adds Preston Royal Location for 2017 Plans - Food & Beverage Magazine". fb101.com. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
^ Wilonsky, Robert (16 November 2006). "Romano Back in Business...at Eatzi's". dallasobserver.com. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
^ "THE MARKETING 100: EATZI'S: PHIL ROMANO". adage.com. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
^ http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2017/02/10/phil-romanos-eatzis-lands-atnorth-dallas-shopping.html
^ "Work to begin next month on Eatzi's near Fort Worth Zoo". star-telegram.com. Retrieved 24 March 2017.

Jeffdnfg, your sources do not do much to show notability. The bizjournal links are press releases and do not show notability per WP:INDY. The Advertising Age story is an interview, also not independent. F & B is a trade publication. It has 0 reputation for fact checking and is constructed entirely from press releases. The two stories from the Dallas and Fort Worth papers are WP:ROUTINE announcements of store openings or closings. This is a small chain. It's doubtful you will find anything better. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The material Jeffdnfg added was copied directly from the corporate website, and thus was a copyright violation. Sorry Jeffdnfg, but we can't accept copyright content unless it's released under a compatible license. Please see your user talk page for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete : Non-admin closure. Article deleted as G3 (blatant hoax). RoCo^(talk) 22:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24: Midlife Crisis[edit]

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

Hoax. I would have nominated under CSD but my understanding is that non-immediately-obvious hoaxes are more appropriately PRODded; an IP removed that notice, so here we are. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC) ok fine by me just dont block me[reply]

Speedy delete- Clear hoax (or misinterpretation by creator). Completely unreferenced. No sources could be found that are even indicative of such a series. RoCo^(talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax. (Yes, that's my entire rationale) Exemplo347 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied, creator blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gadre Marine Exports[edit]

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

Seems promotional. Does not assert notability. RoCo^(talk) 21:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seconded. No notability claim. bojo | talk 23:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON Bishonen | talk 01:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Kelly[edit]

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

Proposing deletion for a promotional page. Searches for 'Nathan Kelly composer' online yield little, let alone good evidence of notability. The sources given on the page are lacking. Most are to the Kelly's own personal website or to dead links. One source is to a 'DuckDuckGo' internet search for Kelly, which, funnily, does not give much more than this Wikipedia page. His IMDb page has, similarly, been used for promotional purposes. The linked IBDB page describes two positions: a 'special keyboard arrangement' and a 'music department assistant'. Unsourced references/advertisements to Kelly have also been included in other articles here. Some had already been removed and I have sorted the rest. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying this from another user's (perhaps the subject's?) talk page (87.210.99.206 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)):[reply]

I'm not sure how to exactly edit on Wikipedia but please do not delete this page. Though some of the sources could be cleaned up, if you like, the content is true and verifible, albeit difficult to do as Nathan Kelly is young musician but the projects and dates and facts are true indeed. Any help is appreciated but please do not delete the page, please, please. 2620:CC:8000:886:A9FE:A584:A663:536F 22:19, 24 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to find this NY Times review of June in Buffalo at the University at Buffalo which talks a bit about one of Kelly's compositions. However, that is the best coverage I was able to find. The sourcing in the article consists of a mix of primary sources and unreliable sources. It seems this individual is still very early in his music career. No prejudicial to recreation in the future if he garners coverage in reliable sources as his career progresses. --- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowberry Creek[edit]

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

Unsourced. Unable to find reliable sources upon a quick search. "Stream" whose significance has not been established. Fails notability guideline. RoCo^(talk) 20:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't seem to find much of anything about this creek. This article has no claim of notability. bojo | talk 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable can be said for this geographic feature. It exists but that's about it.Glendoremus (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is a real, named feature. Reserving my judgement until I can think a bit more on this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to CBC Radio 2 per author affirmation. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstream[edit]

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

May not meet general notability guideline. Covered only by primary source. RoCo^(talk) 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage seems available, nor is there much likelihood it exists in dead tree form. Fails WP:NRADIO as it has not played any significant role in programming and received consequent coverage. Triptothecottage (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Redirect per original author below. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CBC Radio 2. Full disclosure, I'm the original creator of this, about a decade ago when the mere verifiability of its existence as a networked radio show was all that was actually required. But the notability rules for radio content have been considerably (and wisely) tightened up since, and indeed this simply isn't the subject of any real coverage in its own right — while the initial coverage of R2's programming shift made it sound like there was going to be more substance to this show, all it's really turned out to be is the radio equivalent of an iPod on shuffle: an automated, hostless stream of continuous music through the overnight hours until R2 Morning kicks in again the next morning. So there's really just no substance that can be written about what it's actually turned out to be. But it should still be retained as a redirect to the network, if for no other reason than the fact that it's mentioned there and linked in a few other articles. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, Bearcat. Is there any article this could be merged with (or mentioned in), or will the redirect suffice? RoCo^(talk) 21:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just a redirect to the network. Maybe with an anchor to the "CBC Radio 2 schedule" section, though, since the network's article is long and that's the part where the show name actually comes up. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CBC Radio 2 per Bearcat; could easily be closed 'per author affirmation' at this point. No objections to having a bit in the Radio 2 article either. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reinecke[edit]

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

Article has no references whatsoever. It's also a stub. No interest has been shown for editing the article either. It's best to remove it Yashovardhan (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Thank you for the discussion. It was a mistake on my part to have nominated this for deletion. I should have researched on the topic before. Moreover, there has been considerable improvement on the article after this discussion. Sorry for the bad nomination. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - 1) That's not a valid rationale for deletion. 2) There are a dozen different language articles written on the individual, and as a rule of thumb, before you nominate a German for deletion check the German article. TimothyJosephWood 20:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ - The article does not meet Wikipedia's credibility standards whatsoever. There are no references at all. I'm not active anywhere other than the English wiki but still will have a look at the German wiki. Also, the page is one of the oldest pending review from a new page reviewer. The article is a complete stub regardless of this discussion. If not deletion, the article will need considerable improvement to survive. Yashovardhan (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not meet or fail to meet notability standards; subjects do. A poor article on a notable subject should usually be improved, rather than deleted. I encourage you to more thoroughly review WP:BEFORE, which, among other things, advises users to check versions of the article in non-English languages. Machine translation (you should be using Google Chrome anyway) is usually sufficient to tell whether it is a substantial and sourced article. You pretty evidently didn't follow the BEFORE steps with this one. It's not a terrible mistake to make, and it's pretty common for editors to confuse the state of the article with the notability of the subject, but that's just part of getting used to the whole process. TimothyJosephWood 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I am not an expert on archaeology but ten seconds on Google Books finds a festschrift written to mark his 75th birthday and quotes like that he "established the chronology of the European Bronze Age and Iron Age". That sounds pretty notable to me. There are articles on him in fourteen languages and about that many articles link to his page. That sounds like evidence of notability, too. I recommend that this nomination be withdrawn. Blythwood (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Stub is not a valid criterion for deletion. Neither is "no interest". RoCo^(talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media[edit]

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

Twice examined before at AfD, both of which (2nd and 3rd) had confessed signs of unconvincing significance and notability, and the subsidiary articles have also been deleted, Bristol + and Mike Bennett (businessman), so because this is still unimproved, there's nothing to suggest satisfied policies; to examine the sources at last AfD; 1-8 are a local business story ("[company] astonishing"), ("E3 enjoys a number of clients, these [are]:"), "[they] praise their team with helping them win awards, including a "of the year"), "They said, other customers include", "They announced, they said, their employees", "They hope, investors have already slapped", "They said", "[company] aims to give young people deciding on a university the lowdown from current students", 9 is a few-sentences quotes. So to quote, WP:GNG, "Articles may be notable (not guaranteed) and coverage must not be primary or connected to the subject" which fits the above given our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not then applies, which states: Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, altogether a policy older than WP:GNG itself and one that supports any deletion without exceptions (something WP:GNG has not attained). In fact, the only attention this article got of changes was the last AfD itself, not a hopeful sign including when these were my searches here and here.. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some local coverage, a bit of trade press and some marketing fluff picked up by the media doesn't make it a notable company. I think my local bakers manages more coverage than this. Shritwod (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Knight, Jenny (2004-03-27). "E3 Media - Focus". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  E3 MEDIA is now one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University.
  That was seven years ago. Last year the agency made the first ten in Design Week's Top 20 UK Digital League Table, with a turnover of Pounds 2.2 million.
  ...
  Mike Bennett, the joint founder with Stuart Avery, said: "We found Bristol was a vibrant, cosmopolitan student city. I don't think we would have been as successful so quickly if we had launched in any other place."
  E3 Media specialises in web, internet, extranet and CD-Rom development. It is also in the forefront of viral campaigning: gathering information via internet games.
2. Smale, Will (2005-06-23). "From bedsit to bluechips". BBC. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Few would equate undergraduate student digs with business acumen.
  Yet, in 1997, Bristol students Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery defied everyone's expectations when, while revising for their final exams, they started digital communications company E3 Media from their bedsit.
  Since then, the two men have turned 30 and their company has matured into a diversified business offering everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations.
  Marching steadily through the late 1990s bursting of the dotcom bubble, today E3 enjoys a number of bluechip clients.
  These range from mobile phone giant Orange, to clothing firm French Connection, car care products and bike shop Halfords, and the National Express bus company.
3. Iziren, Adeline (2005-01-08). "What happened next?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Mike Bennett is now an entrepreneur, with a multi-million pound digital media company he set up with his business partner, Stuart Avery, at university.
  Bristol-based E3 Media provides internet, intranet and multimedia design services to the likes of Orange, National Express and Cadbury. Mike and Stuart credit their 35-plus creative team with helping them land and keep big name clients. They also praise their team with helping them win awards, including a best charity website of the year award.
4. "Bristol firm e3 helping big firms set out online strategy". Bristol Post. 2014-05-21. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  WHEN the internet was just becoming the next big thing, everyone wanted a website, although many didn't really know why.
  Things have changed. Now being online is a given but more and more people and businesses are asking, what can the internet do for me? What problems can it solve?
  Growing digital agency e3's story parallels - or perhaps leads - that trend. Founded in 1997 by Mike Bennett (who went on to found the See No Evil street art festival) and Stuart Avery, it began life as a web design business.
  Now, as managing director Neil Collard, right, explains, building websites is still part of the business, but not the purpose.
  ...
  They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes.
5. Rigby, Chloe (2001-02-15). "Booming Media Firm Taps the Irish Market". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  NEW Southville media company E3 Media is growing out of its Bristol base and has opened new offices in Dublin and London to support work coming from across the UK and Ireland.
  The company, which has grown from six to 40 members of staff and seen turnover grow by more than 600 per cent in the last year, specialises in digital communications and recently launched a consulting arm.
  ...
  The site, which is currently receiving three million hits each month, has also just signed a major partnership deal with the Bank of Ireland and a leading Irish insurance company.
6. Dunn, Sam (2000-03-16). "Western Daily Press: Incubator goes online". Western Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  TWO West graduates are poised to launch the region's first Internet 'incubator' start-up firm.
  Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery, of Bedminster, Bristol-based e3 Media, are looking to help set up websites for fledgling Internet firms by providing start-up funding, business strategy advice and securing investment from venture capital firms.
  By acting as an incubator for seedling companies, they hope online entrepreneurs will flourish across the region instead of turning to the City for support.
  Investors have already slapped a GBP20 million price tag on the firm should it choose to go public but e3 Media plan instead to expand privately.
  The new firm will draw on the technical expertise of three-year-old multimedia and Internet firm New Generation Productions, also set up by Bennett and Avery.
  By bringing on board the entrepreneurial skills of Bristol City football club chairman Scott Davidson and Dougal Temperton, publisher of Venue magazine, e3 Media plans to nurture creative talent from across the region and turn it into potential Internet businesses - hand-in-hand with jobs and growth.
7. Rigby, Chloe (2000-11-13). "Focus on Growth". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  FAST-GROWING new business E3 Media, which operates from Southville, has grown to five times its size in less than a year.
  Now it has unveiled a contract to work on the launch of a state-of-the-art camera which is being produced by Canon.
  The company was founded in 1997 by Mike Bennett and Scott Davidson, who initially worked out of a cellar in Bedminster.
  It has grown rapidly over the past 10 months, expanding from eight workers to 40 and is still recruiting.
8. Rigby, Chloe (2001-01-15). "Website Gives Lowdown to Would-Be Students". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  SOUTHVILLE new media company E3 Media is behind a new website which aims to give young people deciding on a university the lowdown from current students.
  The company, based in the Tobacco Factory, says every UK and Irish university is covered on The Student Guide, set to go online on January 25 and be officially launched in March.
  ...
  Graduates Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery set up E3 Media in 1998 with Scott Davidson, director of Bristol City Football Club and founder of Trade-It and Dougal Templeton of Venue magazine. Now it has 40 staff.
  The company approaches internet strategy in the same way as an advertising or marketing agency would approach their markets and its clients include household names such as Orange, Canon, Motorola, and Oracle. The new student website venture, which has so far seen investment of around GBP100,000 by E3 Media, is fully owned by the company and it now plans to take on board commercial partners.
9. Tyler, Richard (2010-02-01). "Businesses give their verdict on the banks". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Digital media designers Stuart Avery and Mike Bennett completed the management buy-out of their profitable business, E3 Media , last year. They had to move banks – from NatWest to HSBC – to do it, but both are happy with the outcome. "This year we kept our heads down and got the numbers to give them some confidence in us," said Mr Bennett. "They took a gamble and it's worked out well. Now we are talking to them about another loan because we want to acquire a business."
10. E3 Media has had a significant impact on society. That E3 Media worked with the National Trust to create the "50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4" campaign shows they have had a significant effect on society. The campaign received significant coverage in Design Week (link), which discusses E3 Media's involvement in the campaign:
  Bristol based consultancy e3 has produced the interactive website for the National Trust’s new ‘50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾’ campaign.
  Launching today, the site is aimed at 8-10 year olds. It challenges children to complete 50 activities like catching a butterfly, going abseiling and cooking on a campfire.
  ...
  e3 also researched popular children’s websites like Club Penguin and considered the tastes of their own children to develop a site that it hopes is fun and interactive. Users can change the backgrounds and the characters’ clothes.
  The consultancy has worked with the National Trust for nearly five years and this site is the first of three new projects it is working on.
  The project started in December 2011 when the Trust approached e3 to design the website to accompany a ’50 Things’ scrapbook. The consultancy says that as the project developed the digital side became the focus because children like to play computer games. Now the campaign and scrapbook are based around the online content.
  It also received coverage in the Daily Mirror (link), the Daily Express link), The Guardian (commentary by journalist Ally Fogg), and The Telegraph (link). There are other sources about the campaign here.
  In this article, a National Trust assistant director wrote on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website:
  Over 90,000 children have logged their adventures on the 50 things to do before you’re 11¾ website and app.
  ...
  Two years ago our Natural Childhood report painted a bleak picture of children become more and more disconnected from nature and the outdoors. The number of kids who regularly go to their local ‘patch of nature’ has halved in a generation. 9 in 10 kids can spot a Dalek when they see one. Yet a third of kids can’t identify a Magpie.
  I think getting 90,000 children to participate in a campaign that encourages them to explore the outdoors shows they have had a significant effect on society.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow E3 Media to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources in the article and above are not convincing for notability; this is still an unremarkable private agency going about its business. The coverage strikes me as routine as in "local company does well" or "here's a new client". Notability is not inherited from notable clients, and there's literally nothing else there. Despite the best efforts since the last AfD, this is non encyclopedically relevant content. It belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AgensGraph[edit]

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

This database software does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Sources found during a WP:BEFORE search are either passing mentions, promotional advertorials or from the company's own website. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone and no assertion of notability is made. Comes with a convenient COI disclosure! Triptothecottage (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Graph Database Technology is sill relatively new and there just isn't a whole lot of information about it. Having said that however, it is among the fastest growing and there will be a lot of content written on it. Moreover, some of the references used in the AgensGraph article are the same references used by some of the leading companies in the industry. For example, db-engines was used as a reference for Neo4j and github was used as a reference for both ArrangoDB and Neo4j. Again, this article does indeed need quite a bit of improvement and I am working hard each day to make those improvements. Thank you everyone for taking the time to comment on this article. Sincerely, Dataace9 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then an article can wait until there is more content about it. If there ever is. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...is sill [sic] relatively new and there just isn't a whole lot of information about it. Having said that however, it is among the fastest growing and there will be a lot of content written on it Congratulations, you've given us three reasons to delete this: it's not known, there's not much anyone has written about it, and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. So, delete. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sock's nomination struck. No outstanding calls for deletion. (non-admin closure) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources cited. I did a Google search and didn't find any secondary sources except a short Variety article; not enough to prove notability. Youngodin (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Nominated by a confirmed and blocked now sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You want to delete the article for the guy who created The Tribe (TV series)?!... I'm highly inclined to vote keep on this. The key is somebody who can find New Zealand sources for this one – I'm sure this guy has gotten coverage in New Zealand entertainment media circles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While The Tribe has a lot of coverage, it looks like Raymond Thompson himself doesn't. The press usually focuses more on the stars of the shows and the shows themselves rather than the creators; it may be worth noting that The Tribe's co-creator, Harry Duffin, doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Maybe you're right that somebody in New Zealand has sources. All I can say is that I didn't have much luck finding source material. Youngodin (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

I'll try and look into this over the weekend. But I find it implausible (not impossible, mind you, just implausible) that a prolific children's show producer/creator hasn't gotten coverage. The trick may be to search for articles that cover Cloud 9 Screen Entertainment Group. The issue, though, is that I suspect a lot of that coverage is New Zealand-based, and not necessarily internet-available, which is why it'll help if one of our New Zealand editors sees this, and is able to help out from that angle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that another editor has added some inline sourcing to this one, so it's getting close to passing based on that – the Variety and The Dominion Post refs, especially, are quite helpful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is covered in reliable sources such as Variety and The Dominion Post, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – haven't gotten to checking for more sourcing on my own for this one yet. But the fact that it was nom'ed by a sockpuppet is enough for me to err on the side of "keep", esp. in light of the recently added sourcing to the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Alan[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for missing refs since 2009. I noticed that he won a Young Artist award in 2005, but not sure how significant an award that is. Natg 19 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are even close to being reliable ones. Additionally it seems his roles have tended towards the minor not the significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sporadic, minor roles. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Adams-Riley[edit]

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

Non-notable clergyman of a church. Have not found any RS on him specifically. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be all that notable. Seems to be a little bit of a case of WP:BIOFAMILY. bojo | talk 17:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vicar of a notable church, which always makes notability highly probably. Click on HighBeam and Books in the search bar for a start on available sourcing. and here:[4] is a gNews search. What we have here is an article started in 2013 by an SPA who either admires or knows this family or perhaps is a fan of The Last Confederate: The Story of Robert Adams. It is a poor-quality article about a notable clergyman; keep and hope for an editor who will expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Even if the church is notable, its clergy do not inherit notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Todd Adams[edit]

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

Non-notable theater actor, with minor roles in B movies. Natg 19 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. bojo | talk 17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has appeared in regional theatre productions that as far as I can tell are not defining (and it is not even clear that his roles were significant) and has had insignificant roles in film and television. This is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Key Themes in Media Theory[edit]

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

Apparently unremarkable text book. No sources found to indicate the publication is in any way notable. TimothyJosephWood 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK. bojo | talk 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill non-notable textbook. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book is not notable. No reliable source reviews that I can find. - Pmedema (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solly Assa[edit]

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

References consist of sources which lack independence or which are no more than WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the subject. A google search turns up a bunch of people named "Solly Assa" who are probably not this person. KDS4444 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He is not even notable enough to be mentioned on any of the movies in his filmography's pages. bojo | talk 17:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that there are worse articles that need deletion. There are a dozen of solid references so far... Think we should make it a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemanmk (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - agree that there are probably worse articles but that's not a valid argument to keep this one.Glendoremus (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in any independent source.Glendoremus (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNYouth party[edit]

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

Fails GNG and POLOUTCOMES DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per already mentioned policies. bojo | talk 17:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a registered political party. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annassery Bhadrakali Temple[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Article creator, based on username, might have a COI issue. Searches turned up virtually nothing on this temple. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of GNG pass Spiderone 08:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was blank and redirect per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — kashmiri ^TALK 21:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology company[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF, overly broad. Three of the four external links point to company home pages, so possible WP:SPAM as well. South Nashua (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology#Industrial is a very underdeveloped section.Although it is rising nowadays. History_of_biotechnology#Biotechnology_and_industry is a little better. I think there is where any valid encyclopedic content about commercial biotechnology should go. I'm generally a believer in main articles for categories but not in this case, where we do have a main list for category, List of largest biotechnology companies. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the de-facto creator of this article, and in view of the two opinions above, I am taking a liberty of blanking and redirecting to Biotechnology as suggested by Shawn in Montreal. Deleting the article would not be the best option in my view due to the significant number of incoming wikilinks. ~~An uninvolved editor might please close this.~~ — kashmiri ^TALK 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Güneli Gün[edit]

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

Notability has been in question for almost a decade, request for sources has been in for almost 2 1/2 years. Fails GNG/NAUTHOR as it is now, unlikely that can be rectified looking at the time this article has been around. South Nashua (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search fails to find independent reliable sources. The books were all published or translated directly by Güneli Gün, so any sources about such books would not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NAUTHOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Norton (cricketer)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. Has never played in a top-class match and so fails WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CRIN. St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – his CA profile confirms he has yet to play a first-class match. Recreate if and when he does. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing establishes notability, either in or out of cricket. From a technical point of view he last played for Yorkshire Second XI in 2007 and doesn't appear to have played even vaguely notable club cricket for a number of years either. He's not on Yorkshire's books and hasn't been for a long time. An example of over-zealous article creation if I ever saw one. Note: there are pages that link to the article which will need editing on deletion as well to remove references to him Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricketeer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No first-team appearances for his county. One who didn't quite make it. Johnlp (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This cricketer has not played any First Class or List A cricket match.he is not notable cricketer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevrette Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable low-level college football player who has not yet played in the NFL, CFL or AFL. References in the article do not talk about him, much less do they give him significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. Article seems to be written by someone close to him as well. JTtheOG (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet notability standards, but there's plenty of external sources here. Not a bad article, but it's hard to make the case for notability. South Nashua (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding the sort of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources as needed to satisfy WP:GNG. If he actually makes it in the CFL, the article would then pass WP:NGRIDIRON, but we're not there yet. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players, which are very broad as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Indian Students Union UK[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I took into account the arguments and input that were from non-involved and non-invested users that were not using multiple accounts, and did not significantly contribute to the article's creation or arguments/disputes during the process. These users established that notability is not met (per WP:GNG), and that the majority of the reliable sources cited or found were not covering this article subject as it's main topic of material, but notable people that made mention of the article subject instead. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 1 April 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}}.

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

The article is regarding an organization which is not really notable, and the article is biased. Rd897 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It reads like a promo and relies upon mostly primary sources. Imalawyer (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote by blocked sockpuppet account ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promo just written by the said organization and their representatives in a promotional way to big their own causes. Lack of notability for a small student group. --Rd897 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To all making a decision on this page, please may I request your attention on the below. Thank you. Also: Ajf773, Exemplo347 Imalawyer Shawn in Montreal

The user rd897 seems to have some sort of personal problem against the said organisation, which as you are aware has not spared them sharing private details of individuals on wikipedia, causing potential harm to them (specifically, user Mohanish Borana and Sanam Arora). This is made all the more concerning by the fact that they are using wikipedia to delete only two pages - National Indian Students Union UK and Sanam Arora, and that is their only contribution to Wikipedia. Should they be allowed to use a platform such as Wikipedia to take out what seems are personal issues?

Regarding the actual notability of the organisation, please note the below:

1. There are 5 patrons of this organisation, including a former United Nations Secretary General (Dr Shashi Tharoor), a member of UK parliament (Rt Hon Virendra Sharma MP), Former Deputy High Commissioner of India to UK (Dr Virander Paul) and an Indian Education Minister (Mr Ram Bilas Sharma). These senior figures have joined the organisation to support its good work and further its vision.

2. There are multiple high profile supporters of this organisation, including its Honorary Fellows - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (international peace-maker and spiritual guru), Dr SY Quraishi (former Chief Election Commissioner of India), Mr Javed Akhtar (Member of Parliament, India and Indian cinema legendary figure) and Mrs Shabana Azmi (Social activist and Indian cinema legendary figure).

3. This organisation is the only such organisation which is repeatedly engaged in advisory services by the Indian Government on matters relating to young Indian students and youth in the UK. All of this is made evident by various links to Indian government owned websites such as https://pbdindia.gov.in/session-report-5 - you will note that NISAU's president is the only UK student/alumni representative.

4. This organisation has been engaged by the Mayor of London to conduct exclusive research into experiences of Indian students in the UK.

5. This organisation to show some examples, has been called upon by: - UK Parliament's All Party Parliamentary Groups (see http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/sites/default/files/APPG_PSW_Inquiry_Report-FINAL.pdf) - Westminster Policymaking forums (see http://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/forums/slides/Sanam_Arora_International_Students.pdf) - Scottish Government (see http://news.gov.scot/news/scotlands-colleges-back-return-of-post-study-work-visa) - Indian High Commission in UK (see https://www.hcilondon.in/gallery.php?album=1794)

6. This organisation is featured in top Indian and UK newspapers for its work. Some recent examples include: - http://indianexpress.com/article/india/uk-must-remove-obstacles-faced-by-indian-students-shashi-tharoor/ - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/britain-indian-students-easier-uk-post-brexit-india-visa-relations-shashi-tharoor-kerala-mp-diplomat-a7623551.html - http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/visa-policies-for-indians-in-the-uk-must-focus-on-post-study-work-opportunities/story-MTGpTgoYvgSE8mTeBORoXJ.html

7. The President of the organisation was recently awarded the India UK thought leadership award for her work with the organisation. Please note that a fellow recipient of the same award was the Deputy Mayor of London. See some coverage by the Times: - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-india-relationship-at-risk-as-student-numbers-slide - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/anglo-indian-ties-strained-student-visa-policy

I hope the few points above are enough to prove the claims made by user rd897 that accompany their deletion request, as baseless:

" The article is regarding an organization which is not really notable, and the article is biased " - a. User Mohanish explained (that rd897 later deleted), the presence of the organisation in more than 25 universities covering all 4 countries of the United Kingdom. In fact, the Northern Ireland wing of the organisation was launched by the Mayor of Belfast and the British Council. See - https://asianlite.com/news/uk-news/nisu-floats-n-ireland-chapter/

b. Notability is very explicit given the points above and, note most of these are stated on the wikipedia page for the organisation anyway This is a promo just written by the said organization and their representatives in a promotional way to big their own causes. Lack of notability for a small student group

a. This seems like a personal attack on the representatives of the organisation. Wikipedia should not allow its wonderful platform to be used to propagate such negativity

b. I don't agree that the article is written like a promo, but if rd897 feels that way, their view was respected and taking that into account user mohanish modified the text accordingly. rd897 reversed these changes instead of acknowledging that their views had been respected. Also note they didn't help in the first place by editing the page such that their views were taken into account. They simply want it deleted and are not helping either the cause of the organisation nor that of Wikipedia

c. A "small student group" is just factually incorrect. Small groups don't have presence in 5 countries - i.e. all 4 of the UK, and India. nor are they called upon by governments and supported by such senior figures. Even if the organisation was indeed "small", there is no reason for the great work being done by the organisation to not be shared with current, past and future Indian students who greatly appreciate all the work the organisation does to help and represent them. Note this is all done for free (as noted on the NISAU website). Not sure what "own causes" rd897 seems to be alluding to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histbp1234 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd897: The UK-wide presence of the organisation is described explicitly to remove contention of its notability. NISAU has its presence in 25 major universities of the UK including LSE, King's, Westminster, Warwick, SOAS, Manchester, Belfast, Edinburgh and prominent figures including members of parliament of both UK and India, Ministers, CBEs, Global icons in arts and spirituality are associated with it. What bias is seen in the content? Being an apolitical and non-religious organisation, no ideology is biasedly presented nor it only talked about the UK or India. When the issues that Indian students face was listed in the article, it was accompanied by the condemnation of visa-abuses.

@Imalawyer: Proper referencing is done and a lot of external sources are listed now. Language is altered too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohanishB (talk • contribs) 07:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note for closing admin: please refer to these SPI's which show MohanishB, Histbp1234, MohanishBora and MohanishBorana to be engaged in meatpuppetry and socks of each other. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MohanishB and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MohanishB/Archive and hence important to disregard this 'keep' vote below. The consensus is for delete. --Rd897 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP

Organisation meets all criteria for Non Commercial Organisation i.e.

1. Scope of work is trans-national in scale. The organisation operates in 5 countries - all 4 countries of UK and India. The Northern Irish chapter of the organisation was launched by [[British Council]] and Mayor of Belfast.

2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. E.g. Scottish Government (see http://news.gov.scot/news/scotlands-colleges-back-return-of-post-study-work-visa), mainstream UK media (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/britain-indian-students-easier-uk-post-brexit-india-visa-relations-shashi-tharoor-kerala-mp-diplomat-a7623551.html, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/anglo-indian-ties-strained-student-visa-policy), mainstream Indian media (http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/visa-policies-for-indians-in-the-uk-must-focus-on-post-study-work-opportunities/story-MTGpTgoYvgSE8mTeBORoXJ.html, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/brexit-blow-uk-loses-its-sheen-as-most-popular-study-destination-for-indians/articleshow/56837907.cms, http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/world/6625-conservatives-host-transforming-india-roundtable)

Would emphasise 2b and 2d as per WP:SKCRIT.

No reasons for deletion met per WP:DEL-REASON.

Would recommend nominator be banned for vandalism per WP:VAN. Nominator has made no other contribution to Wikipedia other than personal attacks on President and Secretary of the organisation, they have even been warned for privacy breaches per WP:PA. Instead of helping meet the goal of Wikipedia by editing and improving the page, they keep nominating it under baseless grounds for deletion. See WP:ATD. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal attacks per WP:PA.

It is to be noted that the nominator reversed improvements made to the article following their own comments. This makes their negative intentions explicit.

If any concerns remain about advertising / promotion, then contributors are recommended to edit.

--Histbp1234 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC) — Histbp1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I thought it should be noted that the United Kingdom is one country. --Rd897 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is a new account made only to comment on this. I would guess perhaps a sock of User:MohanishB, User:MohanishBorana, and User:MohanishBora all of which are blocked. --Rd897 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This user has also got around the auto-confirmed protection by making minor changes to a lot of pages, see here for account creation and here for user contributions has created another account, probably for the same purpose if required by them, in a few days' time. --Rd897 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith - after all, some might say you only created your account to nominate two articles for deletion. It's irrelevant. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will not indulge in pointless accusations. My account is not a sock of User:MohanishB. I find it hypocritical user rd897 is indulging in personal attacks on my contributions, when their own account is publicly evident to have only been created to vandalise this organisation and its office bearers. Their own contributions are only to repeatedly attack the organisation, see rd897 contributions here.

Ajf773 please may I draw your attention here? Can you see the conflict of interest with user rd897? If their sole motive (as is evident by their contributions) is to defame an organisation, then how can their accusations and justifications hold any merit? Really welcome your guidance here. Histbp1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a wonderful platform, and we should seek to improve what we can on it, not fight pointless wars. I also notice that despite two different editors removing your multiple votes, neither of which are allowed given you nominated the page for deletion in the first place, you have reversed User:Bbb23's comments and voted again. Please respect your fellow editors, and wikipedia policies.--Histbp1234 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this article suggests the subject meets all the notability requirements. Sources are hardly independent (ie Youtube) and the whole article is written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Subject fails to pass WP:GNG.Most of the mentions in WP:RS are because of the high profile of the subjects dealt with.Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will like to defend the page on WP:GNG requirements.
Reliable: 1. There are a lots of secondary references including prominent news dailies of India and the UK, Westminster forum projects (ref 26-29), Scottish government (ref 32-33).
Significant coverage: Official Consulate General of India website lists NISAU at top of all students association.
This is a very important point. Official Government agencies are listing this organsation and inviting them to international events to deliver addresses. This should be enough on its own merit to justify notability.Histbp1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Yes the high profile people takes major share of the news coverage for obvious reason but comment from Winged Blades^Godric clearly acknowledge many high profile people are part of the organisation in various capacity (Patrons, Advisors or Honorary Fellows) which indirectly proves its notability because why would otherwise MPs, Baroness, CBE, former Ministers, Former UN Under secretary etc will link to a organisation?
Independent of the subject: Presence on Westminster Forum and Scottish Government or CGI is because of its work and are not produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
Ajf773 (talk) if you find the article of promotional language, the article can be amended accordingly as per Wiki policy but that should not entitle to its deletion given it is a notable organisation in the UK. MohanishB (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- MohanishB. But can it be rewritten to satisfy the notability requirements? I think not. Ajf773 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ajf773 the page has been re-written. Any guidance on any further improvements needed would be most welcome.Histbp1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Ajf773, that the article should be deleted. I think you've set out the reasons coherently. --Rd897 (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, you may indeed restate your preference but per WP:AFDFORMAT please don't repeatedly bold your !vote, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beattie-Smith[edit]

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

Subject was a candidate in an election and lost. Other coverage is trivial Kingbird1 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the future, she may become more notable, but for the time being, she doesn't have much notability. bojo | talk 13:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I put a Prod notice on this article soon after it was created last April, with the rationale "Neither the subject's place on a candidate list nor listed positions are sufficient for the WP:POLITICIAN or broader WP:BIO notability criteria.". The Prod was removed by the article creator on the basis of newspaper predictions that her party would obtain a list seat, which would go to her, in the then-forthcoming election. This WP:CRYSTAL prediction didn't happen. That leaves the question of whether her subsequent media activity is sufficient to establish any encyclopaedic notability: I think not. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see numerous Gnews sources relating to both the election run and her other activities. WP:GNG Is established by multiple sources in good pubs. Article needs a trim to be less promotional.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May become notable, but now WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local coverage of local elections always exists, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE and an unelected candidate for political office does not permanently clear WP:GNG just because of that coverage alone — to attain notability on the campaign coverage itself, it would have to be shown that her campaign coverage had exploded far out of proportion to what any candidate for office could always show, such as what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010. Absent that, the only other way to get her in the door is to show that she already cleared a Wikipedia notability standard for some other reason independent of her candidacy itself — but nothing here demonstrates that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates are not notable for that, and these is no other coverage of anything else that would show she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NPOLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Eco International[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article did not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with in-depth analysis of the pageant that are independent of the subject. Richie Campbell (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A google search indeed brings up remarkably little information. It seems like it is a best a very minor pageant. bojo | talk 13:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Totally WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Athaenara per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Bhagwat[edit]

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

Non notable CEO fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 WP:GNG failure no indication of importance 2607:FB90:6628:54BC:793A:1192:C45D:6572 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Will rename to Baba Jitto (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bua Kauri Baba Jitmal (Jhiri)[edit]

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

Non-notable saint.Was deprodded. Winged Blades^Godric 12:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be more commonly referred to as "Baba Jitto". Under that name, it's not hard to find some sources:

"Baba Jitto remembered at Jhiri fair". The Tribune. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
Sahagala, Narendra (2011). "Baba Jitto - A Rare Precedent of Self-Sacrifice". Jammu & Kashmir: A State in Turbulence. Suruchi Prakashan. pp. 34–37. ISBN 978-81-89622-83-1.
Dr Mandeep, Dr. Azad; Motan, Dr. Manmeet. "Baba Aghar Jitto Mela". Daily Excelsior.
Jeratha, Aśoka (1998). Dogra Legends of Art & Culture. Indus Publishing. pp. 232–234. ISBN 978-81-7387-082-8.
"SKUAST-J auditorium to be named after Baba Jitto". Jammu Links News.
"Showcasing cultural heritage, Baba Jitto Mela gets underway". State Times.
Chaturvedi, B.K. "8. The Story of Baba Jitto". Vaishno Devi. Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd. pp. 39–43. ISBN 978-81-7182-734-3.
"Agar Jitto mela concludes with Natrang's play "Baba Jitto", thousands pay obeisance". U4U Voice.

The article is weak because it is written from a believer's standpoint and retells a legend as fact, without the caveat that this is the story. It needs lines like "Both of these divine souls are worshiped in the form of total God today" rewritten entirely. But, the subject seems like a notable one. (Incidentally, "non-notable saint" seems almost oxymoronic) Mortee (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Mortee. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Baba Jitto.Glendoremus (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jamesjpk (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This article is bad from a quality standpoint; and a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The state of the article, and the likelyness that the neutrality of the article will be disrupted by the non-neutral writing style of the original article if it gets rewritten lead me to the suggestion of applying WP:TNT.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Personally, I would say that the article should simply be deleted, but there is consensus to merge, and my task as an administrator is to reflect that consensus, not impose my own view. I shall redirect the article, and leave it to one or more of the editors who argued for merging to decide exactly what content should be merged. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BCGsearch.com[edit]

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

There's a fair bit of contentious content here, to be sure, but I'm not seeing sourcing which meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I am open to appropriate alternatives to deletion, but in any case, I think the right outcome here is likely to be improved by a community discussion. joe decker ^talk 03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move material to the appropriate place (possibly Cyber defamation law) to describe this dispute (more RS: [[5]][6] [7]). The lawsuit appears to be notable, but probably not the two parties to the lawsuit nor the entity where it happened (BCG Search) appear to have notability outside the dispute. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge dispute information to Cyber defamation law as per @David Tornheim: above and Keep rest as per WP:UNDUE. There are WP:RS for the search firm doing search firmy-type things: [8], [9] and for the firm's owner firmly practicing pedal-oral implantation multiple times. These Above the Law mentions are not flattering, but AtL is a WP:RS in legal news and as such does contribute to WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Move/selective merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 17:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadeel Qasim Hussein Al-Okbi[edit]

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

person apparently notable only for winning a relatively minor award - search does not find enough sources to support inclusion under GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Merge - I'm not 100% sure the Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize is very minor. If it isn't minor, it may satisfy criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO. And even if it is minor, it is an international prize, and I would be very surprised if it were possible for someone to be awarded this prize and not be profiled elsewhere so as to meet GNG, even if mostly in Iraqi sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete & merge to Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize Smmurphy makes a good point about Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize, which seems to be reasonably selective (one person per year). But I couldn't find much coverage of it, and the coverage of the subject is limited solely to http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/14373349.Leading_Muslim_cleric_speaks_out_about_terrorism__President_Bashar_al_Assad_and_the_refugee_crisis/ (perhaps spelling of her name is a problem, but I don't know how to modify it). Overall, we have an article on an activist who received an award, and whose notability seems solely based on said award. As the award has borderline notability itself, I am afraid this seems on the bad side of notable. However, I think we could merge her bio to Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize, where each recipient can have their own paragraph. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 10:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to merge. As a redirect to the individual's main claim to notability, this seems ok, especially if I am correct that the prize is not very minor. If/when the individual gains more notice, the article can be quickly renewed and improved. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize (no merge please) The prize itself has questionable notability and the significant coverage about the subject doesn't exist. I am against a merge as the information is already there in the target article and adjusted for WP:WEIGHT. Closing this as a merge essentially forcibly leaves a messy attribution redirect. Redirect is a much cleaner solution --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me. I'm against delete then redirect, however, so as to keep the page history. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, my redirect !vote is specifically a redirect with history preserved. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Karve[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The papers authored by the subject have received too few citations according to Google Scholar. She won the Ashden Award as a member of a group (in fact, the award was given to "Appropriate Rural Technology Institute"). Other awards and honors that the subject received don't seem to be notable. And apart from this article in the The Hindu, I don't find any substantial coverage about her work in the Indian media. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. not remotely enough impact to pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catch the Fire Toronto[edit]

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

It looks like an advertising page; the references are of unclear reliability and trustworthiness; there is no encyclopedic value Geocapital (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only a single significant reference to this church in a reliable source (Christianity Today) from more than 20 years ago (1994). Jrheller1 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: historically significant as the birthplace of the Toronto Blessing. I don't know how having a source from more than 20 years ago is a delete argument - in fact, it means it is very likely that there are print sources not online. St Anselm (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said there is little support or good references for it. Add/merge a small part to the Toronto Blessing piece but thats all that is really note worthy. ContentEditman (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the venue for the highly notable Toronto Blessing, the church was certainly notable then; and notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly notable" is a stretch for the Toronto Blessing. The Toronto Blessing was a '90s fad experienced by a few thousand people. The Macarena was a much more significant '90s fad (experienced by millions of people), but we don't need an article about the birth place of the Macarena. Jrheller1 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Blessing was certainly a 90's fad, but experienced by millions, not "a few thousand". And even a cursory glance at Google Scholar, for example, reveals that yes, it's "highly notable". St Anselm (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the "millions" from? According to the article, the size of the congregation was only 1000. Obviously, there are millions of Pentecostals throughout the world who claim to experience similar things, but not in the context of the "Toronto Blessing". Jrheller1 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Toronto Blessing: At the time of the revival, Dr. James Beverley, a critic of the Toronto Blessing and a professor at Toronto-based Tyndale Seminary, stated that these events were a "mixed blessing" but was later quoted in 2014 as saying "Whatever the weaknesses are, they are more than compensated for by thousands and thousands of people having had tremendous encounters with God, receiving inner healings, and being renewed." So according to Beverley, "thousands and thousands" experienced the "Toronto Blessing", not "millions". Jrheller1 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"To date, around two million visitors or "pilgrims" have journeyed to Toronto to experience the Blessing for themselves." St Anselm (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that book section just states the number two million without any proof. As a seminary professor who lives in Toronto, Beverley is a more reliable source. For two million people to have visited the church, there would have needed to be 1000 different people at the church every day for almost five and a half years. Even if there were two million unique visitors, the Macarena is still far more significant (with more than 11 million copies sold and far more than 11 million listeners or participants). Jrheller1 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject really does pass WP:GNG quite easily. Although the coverage is closely connected to the Toronto Blessing, there is lots about how the church coped with it, and relationships to other churches: see, for example, this entry in the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism as well as this book. St Anselm (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the church became notable in the 1990s due to the Toronto Blessing, and remains one of the best-known and influential churches in the global charismatic movement. It therefore has a status of its own and requires a separate article. I am sure it would be straightforward to find numerous references to it in reliable sources. SmilingFace (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough independents sources to verify notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This debate are evidence of our endemic problem with presentism and paywalls. I ran a quick proquest news archive (paywalled) search on "Toronto Airport Vineyard" and up came many, in-depth articles about this church. I added the first one as a source, it is about the split from the Vineyard denomination. and is in the Ottawa Citizen, a non-local big-city daily. There was lots more, certaily enough to create a good article. The catch is that much of the in-depth coverage was back in the 90s - only 20 years ago but its paywalled. So editors like Doc James (above) and the Nom are not seeing it. This is a huge problem for us.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support the argument made by others above that this church is notable as the historic origin of the Toronto Blessing, which was a significant part of the history of Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity in the 1990s. SJK (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are definitely issues with the content of article, but consensus is that this will be best handled through editing rather than deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Steele[edit]

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

This article appears to be drawn almost entirely from primary sources associated with the subject. Its tone is promotional, and overall it reads like a PR biography. Taken at face value, this is the biography of someone who has singlehandedly overturned the theory of evolution and restored Lamarckian inheritance to the scientific mainstream. Anyone familiar with the subject knows this is not the case. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll ping User:Randykitty, but [10] seems to show his research is relatively widely cited, etc., so he may pass WP:PROF. And if so, the article doesn't need a WP:TNT - worst case, cut 90% of the promo stuff, and reduce to the lead. Or tag with {{peacock}} etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Widely cited or self cited? jps (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep GS h-index of 29 passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Article needs to be cut by 90% to remove peacockery. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Here's an excellent example where h-index is not particularly relevant because of incestuous citations. If you actually look at the citations, you will see that they are to essentially a WP:Walled garden. WP:PROF is not supposed to be a suicide pact. Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this WP:FRINGE proposal and there isn't much else going for this person's biographical notability, I say delete. jps (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a walled garden in his citations. Looking at the cites to his top cited (202) paper I find no self-citations in the first 20 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think you are not looking at his papers here but rather a book. I am of the opinion that book citations are generally not particularly useful as a means to gauge interest in how accepted a particular POV is since they reach non-academic audiences. I would argue that the citations to his books are rather, um, fringe-y themselves. jps (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

of 2146 only 191 [11] are for his book.

~~Weak~~ keep Some does not mean none there has been independent evaluation done of this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to offer an example? jps (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was quoting you. You said "Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this " I am taking you at your word.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like to leave open the opportunities for others to show enough WP:FRIND-complaint sources that would change my mind. Simply positing that they exist and then offering bupkis is not my idea of a good faith discussion. jps (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why then not wright "I have seen nothing but am willing to be convinced" rather then implying you have seen some sources? So are you saying you have seen no analysis of this mans work in RS? Are you saying that I should in fact not take you at your word?Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this whinging really necessary? I mean, you now know what I mean, so what's the point of complaining about my wrighting(sic) style? jps (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not know what you mean, Have you or have you not seen RS that analyses his work. It really is a simple yes or no answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, the article should be stubbed and all fringe apologetics removed. It is tempting to say that the resulting article would be so different from the current one that TNT could be invoked to support a detection outcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Guy and others. As I've noted before, I can't think of a single case where an entire body of scientific research has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by someone who lacks expertise in that field. This is classic WP:UNDUE. I suppose a case can be made for stubbing, with removal of all the nonsense, but unless better NPOV secondary sources can be produced, my preference would be outright deletion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is no reason to delete material. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe and others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Well now I have found RS discussing his work I no longer feel a weak keep.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, his claims are pure malarkey and the article needs rewriting. But he seems to have a following of sorts in the pseudoscience sphere and it's probably worth having a few words about how his claims are not widely accepted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe we need to cover his other work and not concentrate on a single book or theory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Xxanthippe said, the article subject has a GS h-index of 29 which passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Plus with all the present citations in the article it passes WP:GNG. The promo stuff needs to go, like around 70 to 80%. Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

american scientist [12] The Quarterly Review of Biology [13] New Scientist, Volume 162 Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society

more [14]Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for his work and impact out side Lamikins.

His dismissal, [15], [16], [17], [18]

This should be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, still too much promotional stuff, but as others point out it passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. @DoctorJoeE I am pretty sure that WP:UNDUE is only a valid justification for removal of material from an article, not deletion of an article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UNDUE specifically says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy you quoted only concerns how an article describes its topic, not what topics can have articles. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never have an article like HIV/AIDS denialism, which concerns what is obviously the viewpoint of a small minority. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is about what is allowed in articles, not what articles are allowed. Also this article is not about something only a few people believe in, I suspect the fringe view is this person does not exist (if he does not exist can we have some RS saying this).Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Pradhan[edit]

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

I came across this as an A7, but Pradhan just barely squeaks by A7 standards because the article mentions some awards. I did try searching under his name, but couldn't bring anything for him, not even using the India WP's search engine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability. His website mentions that he has received some awards from some organizations, but doesn't mention the name of those awards or why he received them. His Google Scholar profiles lists some publications, none of which seem to be his own (Sagar Pradhan is not an uncommon name in India, and Google Scholar has attached the publications of his namesakes to his profile). Also, from the username of the creator of the article, this looks like a WP:AUTOBIO. — Stringy Acid (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per previous comments. Fails WP:GNG. His awards are a scholarship and an alleged internal company award. Google scholar mentions somebody else. It would also appear that the majority of edits are made by the subject of the article, a violation per WP:COI and using multiple IP's (from work and home), which is considered abuse per WP:SOCK. Here he is adding himself to the March 1st page. Should have been speedily deleted when it was first tagged, but he removed the tag (the IP geolocates to Bhubaneswar, Odisha). Page should be salted as it was previously deleted on 16 January 2015. David.moreno72 11:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The criteria for A7 is pretty low overall. My thought with taking this to AfD rather than fudging things a little is that if it goes through AfD then that's pretty much it for the article barring anything exceedingly major coming up in the future. It's more of a solid delete than A7 would be by itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, when it comes to A7 they have far more leeway to recreate an article than they do with AfD. After it's deleted at AfD that's pretty much it. Salting from A7 tends to usually happen more when there are 2-4 attempts to create an article in a very short amount of time, to prevent the same person (or group of people) from being disruptive. When the page was deleted in 2015 it didn't have any mention of the awards, which was the only reason I'd declined the speedy and taken it to AfD. It was a weak assertion, but enough to where they might have been able to contest the speedy if it went to DRV. Basically, A7 only handles cases where there's nothing there that could hint at possible coverage out there. The award mention was vague and I definitely don't think that any of them would give notability on Wikipedia, but you can pass A7 on pretty weak assertions. I figured that since there were two new accounts that signed up, there was a higher possibility that they would argue to get the article restored, making an AfD probably inevitable and making the process go longer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NAUTHOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of useful Unicode symbols[edit]

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

This is an entirely subjective list, reflecting the article creator's ideas of which Unicode symbols are useful. All Unicode symbols are useful to somebody or they would not have been added to the Unicode Standard, and there are no reliable sources for deciding which symbols are useful enough to be included in a list of useful characters. This sort of arbitrary and subjective list is fine on someone's personal website or blog, but entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:AtErik1. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a subjective selection that duplicates material already covered in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia already has a lot of coverage of Unicode, as well as links to all the codepages in Wikibooks. Homoglyphs are already covered, e.g. Duplicate characters in Unicode. Essays and personal picks don't belong in what's supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia.

As mentioned, the definition of "useful" is unclear - is this any more useful than the content it duplicates? If it means useful to everybody in the world, then the selection is suspect. If it's specifically useful to Wikipedia editors, then in theory it could be moved to the Help namespace, but pages like Help:Special characters already exist and are more relevant. It maybe also falls foul of WP:NOTHOWTO, as a manual on how to create confusing user names. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, this is an indiscriminate list based on the article creator's personal opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We already have List_of_Unicode_characters. If this is to be kept, it perhaps could be renamed to a more specific category of characters and modified consequently. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have Unicode symbols. Presumably all of them are useful to someone. wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I appreciate the effort that has been put into this. Organizing symbols by function or use is more helpful to many than our more common organization by Unicode blocks. wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge this with Unicode symbols to List of Unicode symbols. Unicode symbols are a subset of Unicode characters; see Universal Character Set characters § Categories. I'd hate to delete this, while keeping the currently hacked-up Unicode symbols, where Unicode symbols § Symbol Block Table was copied without attribution from List of Unicode characters § Unicode symbols. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article has now been expanded to include not only Unicode symbols but also any random characters that the editor thinks are interesting, including various ligatured Latin letters and CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) ideographs that coincidentally vaguely resemble Latin letters. So the article is no longer a list of symbols, but is an arbitrary list of Unicode characters that one particular editor finds interesting. There is still not a single reference or indication why this is a notable list. BabelStone (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it does seem to be jumping the shark now. @AtErik1: you should pause your work on this, and discuss your rationale and strategy with us here. Don't ignore this discussion, as you would be headed for disappointment as the consensus is obviously leaning towards deleting all your work. wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if something is written in a way it is explicitly useful for readers, it's often written like a guide which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HEY why is there no notice posted on User talk:AtErik1? wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it appears that it has not yet been posted to the relevant ~~source~~deletion sorting list(s) either (or at least, I don't see the related notices). PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two deletion sorting lists were just notified. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:AtErik1 Notified. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi. I can see some users given complain on using the "useful", then please change page title to what it should be renamed into. My objectives are to include many LIGATURES & HOMOGLYPHS & frequently used Unicodes under one page, which looks like latin/english characters, so its easy to find quickly, and if needed use (copy-paste) in various other pages, articles, apps, messaging, mobile-devices, etc. So page title can have such WORDs, it can be "List of latin look-alike Unicode ligatures, homoglyphs". It will include more related Unicode glyphs, so page title can/need-to/may reflect those aspects. I have seen other pages in wiki with only few (under 5) ligatures (listed in discussed-page's SeeAlso), not under discussion for delete! I have already added more alternate words in page for "useful" so that its not undermining usefulness of Unicode's vast & useful code-points collection, for many people from many localities. This list can point into other detail/dedicated pages on ligatures, homoglyphs, frequently used blocks, so that users can find more related or nearby UCS, just like any other "List..." in wikipedia. -- AtErik1 20:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtErik1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unprincipled and utterly non-systematic collection, largely on completely idiosyncratic criteria (CJK characters that happen to look similar to Latin characters, really?) Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of random trivia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate unsourced subjective junk. Maybe there is a subset of unicode that would pass WP:GNG, but this one isn't it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Casse[edit]

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

This article has been bugging me for weeks; we have no criteria at NHORSERACING that covers assessment of notability of the bloodstock agents (basically, they are skilled horsemen familiar with the market who advise others on racehorses to purchase), and this just feels like a purely promotional piece to me. I am not entirely sure it meets GNG, though if the consensus is that this individual is notable, I'm willing to reconsider this nomination and withdraw it. But it feels very commercial in tone, so I need other eyes than mine to look at the notability issue. Montanabw^(talk) 07:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - The creator seems to have been a single purpose account which was invited to also join the horse racing Wikiproject but was not involved on other articles there, was unreponsive to article talk page notifications to provide reliable sources to show notability. This leaves little possibility for others to improve the article or contest the lack of notability. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left another message on the user's talk page, making sure to ping, in case. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to keep, as the creator is still responsive and working on the article. If necessary, it's always possible to nominate again in the future. PaleoNeonate (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate the input and thought I put in enough sources to provide notability. I am open to suggestions and edits....especially so it does not sound like its "promotional". There are 15 different sources from 13 different authors, i thought that was enough. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. :( Im open ears!! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyngetal (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put in an explanation at my talkpage, but in short, it’s the quality of the sources, not the quantity; while TDN, Daily Racing Form and Blood-Horse ARE reliable sources and can be used to establish notability, most of the articles cited basically say, “Some rich person bought an expensive horse on the advice of bloodstock agent Justin Casse. Then the horse won some races and a bunch of money.” But that’s his job. What about him as an individual is different from other bloodstock agents? With trainers or jockeys, our criteria is relatively straightforward, we assess things like the number of Grade I wins to show they are the best in their field. Here, we need sources to show that Casse is somehow better at what he does than the others. You have one or two sources that hint at this, but mostly they emphasize that he’s pretty young and off to a fast start, not that he has actually done BETTER than others. Examples of info to look for: Has he won industry awards? Is he closely associated with clients who won industry awards? (Such as Eclipse awards) Are there statistics that show that he has had some sort of better return on investment for his clients than most? The list of famous horses is of some help, except it’s way too long, for one thing, I would chop any horse that is not a GI winner or an Eclipse award winner or a record-holding champion of some sort. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Montana, The Casse Family is very prominent in the business and articles about Justin Casse have flooded the above mentioned publications over the last 5 years. His list of clients that were mentioned on the page are some of the most notable in the industry and some have won eclipse awards. I know the page is littered with G1 winners sold, purchased and pinhooked, but of course as most of this is suitable within the professional world maybe it is of note on Wikipedia. I know somewhere Casse boasted about having transacted in $80+million in bloodstock sales on 4 different continents, and a 40+% ROI when pinhooking which seems lofty, and if you put those numbers up against the ones you would find on Bloodhorse databases, it seems to hold up, but that type of stuff also seems very promotional. Also, Ive google searched all other bloodstock agents and cannot find half as many articles as there are about Justin Casse. I believe I may not be able to fully fix this article on my own, would you mind helping me? Obviously your experience speaks for itself and I am more than willing to learn by example. Thank you so much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyngetal (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the quality of horses he's dealing in. I'm not really familiar with bloodstock agents being separate from trainers and the racehorse people notability thing is kind of vague for non-trainers/jockeys (which could be fixed--remember when the equestrian one made it sound like nobody could be notable without an Olympic medal, leaving out all the people like Bud Dunn?). I don't think Ladyngetal is a single purpose account, either. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because he is becoming fairly well known in the US industry. Might suggest adding a paragraph or two explaining his job in a bit more detail, since we don't have a general article on the topic of bloodstock agent. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groningen Journal of International Law[edit]

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

Non-notable relatively new journal. No major changes since previous AfD, although the article now contains several "references" (mostly negligible announcements or listings and at least one "reference" that doesn't mention the journal at all). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. On the talk page a handful of citations to articles in the journal is mentioned, but this is far too less to indicate any notability. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What dictates how many citations are "too less"? Several reputable books have referenced the journal:

Book1
Book2
Book3
Book4

Further, I find journals that have their own page with far less support than the GroJIL. What of this, or this, or this? What qualifies their work but not the GroJIL's? Kind regards, User9228 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources given, I find no evidence of notability in the sense of either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Calls to paper are routine, and the rest are at best an in-passing mention of the journal. Being cited ~120 times in GS is also well below the threshold for most law journals. By comparison African Journal of International and Comparative Law gets ~3000 googles cites, American Journal of International Law 81,000 cites, European Journal of International Law has 24,000 cites. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could this perhaps meet the requirements for keeping, because of the educational institution link? PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nothing in policy/guidelines supports this sort of exception to notability. It could be merge to the University / Law School it's associated with, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED. And the article (and journal website) are pretty explicit about the journal being independent from Groningen University and not having any formal association with it (even though there may be personal ties to the university of people connected with the journal). --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for the explanations. After checking, it seems that this was deleted by consensus before, too, then recreated by an account that was blocked for being shared. PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI don't see notability here. Likely also a promotional article given the creator's account name. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the citations presented do not indicate notability - the ones which mention the subject are to pages that cite things published in the journal or to pages associated with the journal itself. What we need is coverage of the journal itself, not mere mentions of it. Granted, this is a lot longer than the previous version (a one sentence stub which only cited the journal website), but from a notability standpoint it's not significantly better. Hut 8.5 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kundi Girl[edit]

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

No references and so unverifiable. Either made up by the author or a non-notable myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should probably be speedied, pretty obvious hoax. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Store[edit]

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

No real independent evidence of notability. Not every university service is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage from actual sources, not notable. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and basically entirely promotional. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Triptothecottage. Dunready (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing special. Article is overly promotional and overstates the importance of the store. There should actually be an article on the many "Free Stores" around the world, like this one in Canada.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that article exists. Suggest pointing "Free Store" to said article.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the page up. We have improved our sources, and believe the store is notable because of the incredible amount of waste diversion it provides every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asavoie (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The value of free stores in general is specified in the generic article. Neither the original version nor the current version provides any specific reason why this particular free store is notable. User:Asavoie - Who is "we"? Accounts should represent one human being. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Sununu. Sandstein 09:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Sununu[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - As per WP:NOTINHERITED, unless of course there is enough to say from reliable sources for notability and to expand the article. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my vote to recommend redirection instead, which seems to make more sense in such cases, so I agree with Ritchie333. PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Sununu per WP:INVALIDBIO Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following WP:NOTINHERITED, as well as a total dearth of sourcing providing any evidence of independent notability. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Sununu. Most sources I could find were trivial mentions. Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect aa the First Lady of NH to her husband. I don't normally buy the INVALIDBIO argument and think the page needs to be updated, but this is a case where a redirect makes sense, because it is very plausible that someone might be searching for a state-level First Lady in the United States. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect agree not necessarilly per WP:INVALIDBIO- rather, WP:TOOSOON. After all, her husband- and by extension, her- have only held the post for about two months, and there's plenty of time to achieve WP:N. So a redirect which- and ironically ANYBIO implicitly recommends- can be turned into an article, is best. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable film. The article went through an AfD (with a 'no consensus' result) but is not better for it -- there's no encyclopedically relevant prose as to why this film is significant or if it had any impact on the popular culture. The previous discussion included arguments on the overall importance of the genre, which is not relevant to this specific article.

Does not meet WP:NFILM & significant RS coverage not found. Please also see a recent AfD on a similar subject:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness (2nd nomination)

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete: Also of interest may be the links from this article to other such movies, which may not be notable enough and constitute WP:DIRECTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeonate (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comment to a vote. PaleoNeonate (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument in the prior AFD: "fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [19], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–South Korea relations[edit]

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

all there is to these relations is diplomatic recognition. a previous Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan–Kosovo relations had an outcome of merge but someone has reversed this, so putting it to AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually agree with the merge argument of the closer of the prior AfD, but since it's already been merged, a simple delete and redirect is in order. Not enough notability for a stand-alone article. There is no inherent notability for these types of articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Panama relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all there is to this relationship is diplomatic recognition. I found no evidence of meetings of leaders or visitors, no trade, no agreements. and I'm sure some keep voters may try to recycle the "major country" argument. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough notability for a stand-alone article. There is no inherent notability for these types of articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notable events in bilateral relations — JFG ^talk 11:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3-Pentene-1-yne[edit]

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

This appears to be a disambiguation page, but articles do not exist for the two links in it. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty sure this falls under WP:SPEEDY so this may not even be necessary. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pretty sure this falls under WP:SPEEDY? I don't see a Csd for organic compounds. Afd is the place for this, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: It'd be G6, specifically pt 2: Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)". -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, I just noticed that it's labeled as a stub, not a disambiguation page. One could make an argument that it's simply mislabeled, since it looks awfully like a dab to me... -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the awkwardly worded G6 guideline suggests to me that it doesn't need to include (disambiguation) if it has zero bluelinks, for G6 to apply? I had to read that sentence several times. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see the confusion. It's two different scenarios joined by that or. Would it make more sense if it was phrased "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero (extant) articles or deleting a disambiguation page that links to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)"."? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we both understand it correctly (?), yes, that was pretty much how I thought it should be worded... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found that bullet point of G6 lacking clarity-wise.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking into the problem, I've found the language at {{db-disambig}} is so much less confusing. I've replaced that bullet point with the language from that template. Fingers crossed, I think the problem has been solved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see that Pentene seems to include 1-pentenes and 2-pentenes but apparently not 3-pentenes. Go figure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 3-pentenes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless those article get created soon, disambiguation page without an article, really. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 08:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. An article such as this would make a suitable {{chemistry index}} page if the linked articles existed or there was compelling evidence that they should be created. But these are not notable chemical compounds and this page serves no purpose. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G6 (new wording - good job). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry I am responsible for this because I edited it. I failed to create articles, so it's better to delete it. Actually, 3-penten-1-yne exists, with CAS number 2206-23-7. --反殷芳 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement on the subjective question on the sources demonstrating sufficient coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Nerra[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Really? First "Save Me" and then this? At least this is notable; you can't just delete pages because you think they're "not notable", although they are Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating just because I think they're not notable. Several people on the Save Me nomination said that Nerra lacks notability as well and that her article should be deleted. I'm just going along with what they said. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How? --BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No chart presence, nothing relevant enough in her music career, just came 7th out of 10 at the Romanian selection for the Eurovision which is quite underwhelming. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 22:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Good sources, Has had a career in music and released several song, and has done interesting collaborations. Clearly notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I honest cannot see how the provided sources do not pass the notability requirements. Carbrera (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't appear as though the "keep" voters have analyzed the sources in any depth, so I'll try.
- This is cruft and this is from the subject's own site; neither really counts toward attesting notability.
- This is a passing mention.
- This is of questionable reliability - the blog of a radio program - and it deals not with the subject, but with a song of hers.
- This is a legitimate source, but it's an interview, and interviews alone aren't a very useful gauge of notability, more for statements of opinion from subjects whose notability is established elsewhere.
So, in conclusion, none of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria appear to apply. The main reason this was created is to boost a claim of notability at another AfD, and it shows. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just going to point that out. This article was created simply because on the Save Me discussion it was noted that the artist didn't even have their own page. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tentative Keep. Never heard of her before now, but a quick search of google news turns up 8000+ articles, almost all in Romanian. Romanian sources could be incorporated into the article if there aren't enough English ones to establish notability. OTOH her entire youtube channel has less than a million views in total.Jwray (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the difficulty of handling sources in a foreign language, but let me suggest that most of those are less than meets the eye. (I know Romanian, and I checked a couple dozen.) This, for instance. Strike one is that it's in Click!, a tabloid, the kind of publication we probably shouldn't be citing. Strike two is that it mainly revolves around the "sacrifice" Nerra had to make in order to leave Germany, travel to her native country, and try out for Eurovision. Again, not exactly something that screams encyclopedic notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The number of results of Google searches are not references. WP:GSNR CBS527^Talk 03:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the article on "Save Me" has been deleted, which further erodes a claim to notability for this article, which was (more or less) expressly created in order to boost the notability claim of the deleted article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable nor do the sources seem to establish notability.

Subject does not meet any of the 12 criteria listed in WP:MUSICBIO.

Both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC require require the subject to have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As User:Biruitorul analysis of the sources demonstrates, the sources in the article do not meet these requirements.

Top Românesc - Blogs generally are not reliable for establishing notability. WP:UGC
iTunes - a promotional site and not useful for establishing notability. "Vendor and e-commerce sources".
Ramona Nerra -Subject's website. Per WP:Basic "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
Adevărul - Interview with subject. Primary source. Per WP:IV "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to are primary-source and not independent material".
Antena3 - Trivial mention that subject finished 7th out of 10 in Eurovision 2017 Romania.

G-searches are not providing sources to establish notability - mostly press release, primary sources, social media or e-commerce sites. CBS527^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Arvunescu, Victor; Constanda, Alexandra (2017-03-01). "Ramona Nerra, finalistă Eurovision România: Piesa nu mă duce la limită, cum spun unii membri ai juriului" [Ramona Nerra, finalist Eurovision Romania: The play does not lead me to the limit, as some say jurors. I do not play the head voice, be easy and cute]. Adevărul (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 2017-03-23. Retrieved 2017-03-23.
  This article provides two paragraphs of non-interview coverage about the subject.
  From Google Translate:
  Ramona Nerra graduated from high school in Craiova and has a diploma in theater and film, completed in Bucharest. It is now a singer and lives in Dusseldorf (Germany). He was persuaded to join in the "Voice of Germany" by her husband, but also participated in Season 6 "Voice of Romania".
  It is described as an open, ambitious and confident. For Ramona Nerra more important than his music career are twins around. In the past, he made the band Alize, with Nicoleta Luciu. Romania is now a finalist Eurovision 2017 with the song "Save Me".
2. Cerban, Madalina (2012-06-15). "Ramona Nerra, românca de la "Vocea Germaniei", pe cea mai nouă compilaţie a DJ-ului ATB" [Ramona Nerra, Romance from "The Voice of Germany", the latest compilation of DJ ATB]. Mediafax (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 2017-03-23. Retrieved 2017-03-23.
  From Google Translate:
  Romance Ramona Nerra, which stood in the "Voice of Germany / The Voice of Germany", appears in the latest compilation of DJ International ATB (André Tanneberger), with whom he recorded two songs - "Never Give Up" and " in And Out Of Love ".
  ...
  Ramona Nerra is 33 years old, graduated from high school in Craiova and has a diploma in theater and film, completed in Bucharest. Currently she is a singer and lives in Dusseldorf. He was persuaded to join in the "Voice of Germany" by her husband. It is described as an open, ambitious and confident. For Ramona Nerra more important than his music career are twins, aged three years.
  In an interview with AFP on January 4, Ramona Nerra, living in Germany for almost ten years, said that "Voice of Germany" - the German version of the talent show "The Voice" - accounted for her "positive change "which allowed him to be more known.
  She said in the interview that when she was 10 years began to frequent "kids club" of Craiova city where he lived until entering college. Later he moved to Bucharest, and its concern remains music. Thus, she began working in the band Alize with Nicoleta Luciu. After leaving the band in June 2002 he went to Germany.
3. "Ramona Nerra Participation Eurovision nerra launches "Save Me" song that joined the Eurovision Romania" [Ramona Nerra Participare Eurovision: Nerra lanseaza „Save me”, piesa cu care sa inscris in concursul Eurovision Romania] (in Romanian). ro:Top Românesc. 2017-02-01. Archived from the original on 2017-03-23. Retrieved 2017-03-23.
  From Google Translate:
  Ramona Nerra is born and raised in Romania and began singing at a very young age. The artist is no stranger to the press and public from Romania. Talented singer became known with Nicoleta Luciu band Alize person that it remained girlfriend. In 2000 he moved to Germany and the fruits of labor in music began to pay off, because after attending "The Voice of Germany" Ramona got to work with one of the most famous DJs in the world, ATB. They recorded two songs together, "Never give up" and "In and out of love" and Ramona Nerra accompanied on his tour American "ATB In Concert". If in 2011 participate in the "Voice of Germany", last year, it managed to impress the jury of the "Voice of Romania" where he reached the semifinals in Smiley's team. Ramona Nerra is not the first participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, she participated in the 2015 ballad "Trilogy of Life" (song he wrote with Patrick Hamilton - Belgium) and in 2016 with Mihai Alexandru song "My heart is still winning. "
4. Kreienbrink, Ingmar (2012-01-27). "The Voice of Germany - Ramona Nerra does not want to be a doll" [The Voice of Germany – Ramona Nerra will keine Puppe sein] (in German). Funke Mediengruppe. Archived from the original on 2017-03-23. Retrieved 2017-03-23.
  From Google Translate:
  The Düsseldorf singer Ramona Nerra would have almost finished at "The Voice of Germany". She was afraid that the casting format would finally end in the usual doll show. Now she is happy to be there and dreams of moving into the semifinals of "The Voice of Germany".
  ...
  The career of Ramona Nerra began in her native country Romania. At the age of 14 she received a training at a singing school. She then studies "Theater and Film" at a university in Bucharest. Ramona Nerra dared to start the music business with the pop duo "Alize".
  However, the success in Romania does not reach her, she wants to get through in Germany. Here, Ramona Nerra makes a name as a singer of the well-known cover band "Fresh Music Live". This takes place regularly in the Düsseldorf harbor. She was also on stage with Lionel Richie, Joe Cocker and Chris de Burgh. "With" Fresh Music Live "I am so much on the road, as the time for my own projects was missing - until her manager announced her at" The Voice of Germany ".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ramona Nerra to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I respectfully disagree with your analysis. The sources above don't appear to meet the requirements of being "independent of the subject" as previously discussed. To elaborate on your examples-

1 (in addition to being primarily an interview) and 2 show clear signs of information from press releases. The coverage provides the same information and some of the verbiage is exactly the same. Some of the same information:

... graduated from high school in Craiova and has a diploma in theater and film, completed in Bucharest.

... now a singer and lives in Dusseldorf (Germany).

... was persuaded to join in the "Voice of Germany" by her husband

... more important than his music career are twins around.

3. Clearly from a press release. Same exact language can be found in "star-gossip.com"., "EVZ.RO". and "1music.ro"..

4. Another article where the majority of the article is quotes from the subject. The non-quoted material shows signs of being provided by the subject-

... She was afraid...

... Now she is happy ...

... she wants ...

... I am so much on the road...

Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." CBS527^Talk 15:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider bylined articles from reputable news organizations to be non-independent of the subject. The articles contain overlapping biographical material but they also have different content.
http://www.evz.ro/de-la-vocea-germaniei-la-eurovision-romania-povestea-ramonei-ner.html notes that the article was written by Alin Pătru, so it is likely the other websites, which do not have author information, are copying from it.
There is sufficient biographical information in the non-quoted sections of the article to provide significant coverage.
Cunard (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we are talking about is far more than "overlapping biographical material", as in the cases of star-gossip.com, evz.ro,1music.ro and topromanesc.ro as well as a number of other sources available online, the exact same wording. Unless all the articles are plagiarized from some source, which, would automatically disqualify those as reliable sources, it is more likely from a press release which doesn't need attribution.

Since several of the aforementioned articles, including star-gossip.com(tabloid) and topromanesc.ro(blogul/blog) were published several weeks before Alin Pătru's evz.ro article it's very doubtful that they were copied from it. A byline in an article doesn't demonstrated that an article original material - this is a perfect example of that.

When the majority of an article is quotations from the subject it is very likely that the unquoted material was also supplied by the subject. The language in the unquoted sources you listed indicates this as well. Information such as where she was born or went to school, that her twins are more important than her career or who she has been on stage with may be interesting and may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. CBS527^Talk 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the third source were excluded, I consider the fourth source from the German publication to be a strong source. It is an international source (Ramona Nerra is Romanian) and it contains significant biographical information about her. That the source includes substantial quotes from her does not mean the rest of the article was not independently researched and verified. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I respect the work put into the article by its creators, but I agree with the above "delete" votes and the reasoning that they put forth. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of GO Transit stations[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a simple list with little added value. Improvement to this list is better directed to other existing articles:

GO train stations could be listed at GO Transit rail services, and are already in {{GO Transit}} as well as each line article:
GO bus stations are already listed at GO Transit bus services#Terminals, stations and carpool/park and ride lots

--Natural R_X 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~; list could be expanded with more info about each station including image, opening date, fare zone, number of platforms, coordinates, station code, interchanges, and probably some other information. Note that the lines do not currently have their own station lists (route diagrams/navbox don't really count). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except for ~~Lakeshore East and~~ Milton (which could be easily added), they do have station lists, actually. See Lakeshore West line#Station list; this is a wikitable format I developed and has been subsequently added to some of the other line articles. This already covers interchanges, and could easily be expanded to include the other items you rattled off. I'm interested in hearing your argument as to why it would be more appropriate to expand List of GO Transit stations to do this, instead of creating/expanding the tables in the line articles, or expanding GO Transit rail services. As for bus services, the tables in GO Transit bus services#Terminals, stations and carpool/park and ride lots already include type, parking spots, address location, coordinates, and other notes. Again, that table can be easily expanded to include the other items you mentioned, and I feel it is inappropriate to have a second, inferior and duplicate location for that info. --Natural R_X 15:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Natural RX: All the information could be sorted in the same table if the list were to be kept and expanded, which could be useful (especially for opening dates and fare zones). I don't really mind if the list is split up into the separate articles, but I'd prefer the list to be kept. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we will have to agree to disagree that one table has much added value. I do not see how rail stations and bus terminals/stations/parking lots can be integrated well into one table. The closest I can see to meeting your preference is have one table at GO Transit rail services. --Natural R_X 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: There is now one table of all rail stations at GO Transit rail services, which has a couple columns you suggested, and which can be built upon. Do you still believe this article is worth keeping in light of that? --Natural R_X 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to redirect (to GO Transit rail services#Lines and stations, or another appropriate page). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:DEL-REASON
A centralized place to look when one does not know which route a station is on (after all, this is an encyclopædia where people look things up)
This sort of list is useful, as evidenced by List of railway stations and

Extended content

or do you propose to delete all of these, too?

WP:IDL is not a suitable reason for deletion.

Useddenim (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useddenim: WP:NOTDIRECTORY Nördic Nightfury 08:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nordic Nightfury: If you think that's a relevant argument, then what about the over 300 List of Xxx stations noted above? Useddenim (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to GO Transit rail services#Lines and stations per arguments above. Nördic Nightfury 08:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Merge - Per Nordic Nightfury. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:DEL-REASON and it appears to be more useful than the category list because it is sortable. Wider tables with more columns may be problematic when viewed on phones. Tetsuo (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of similar articles for other systems. This is not an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but shows that these are a standard article type with consensus to exist. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Like List of Metrolink (California) stations or List of London Underground stations and many others (un-collapse "Extended content" above), as oknazevad wrote there is a standard with station lists that has long been valued by the community as a convenient encyclopedic summery of key information on stations in a particular system. --Oakshade (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above commenters. The difference between this and the Metrolink or London Underground lists isn't that GO Transit is inherently less valid in principle; it's that the Metrolink and London Underground lists both contain substantive content beyond just listing the stations' names — they both contain actual substantive introductions that go well beyond just restating the page title; they both contain system maps and photographs; they both list the stations in expanded tables that also include columns for supplementary details such as intermodal connections, opening dates and ridership statistics; they both contain reliable source references to support the content. I'd be perfectly okay with keeping this if it could be Heymanned up to the quality standard displayed by those lists — but in this form it's not even close to substantive or keepable. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolink is an excellent comparison. They're both heavyweight diesel hub and spoke commuter systems with push-pull operations serving similarly sized metropolitan areas. That this article doesn't have the substantial content you're desiring is simply a matter of regular editing, not deletion. While we'd love to have all perfect articles now, not all articles are going to be top-notch quickly. There's no hurry. It's impossible to add that content to a deleted article. AFD is not a sub for article improvement. --Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lengthy station lists like this one should be kept independent from the main article about the system. What's been done with the list at GO Transit rail services is good - but it's the wrong place for that information. GO Transit rail services should contain a high-level overview of the rail system, including geography, history, operations, rolling stock, future, etc. The lengthy, complex list of individual stations is not appropriate for a high-level overview - it's appropriate for a standalone list. That's precisely why we have hundreds of standalone lists. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I don't see any valid reason for deletion. The list is well populated with notable contents. The list of lists hatted above shows that it is not uncommon to group stations by provider. I also don't see why this would be merged, apart from making the main article longer. Laurdecl ^talk 03:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you're seeing now is a copying of content from GO Transit rail services to List of GO Transit stations. Some valid arguments against deletion have been raised, but this copy of content now makes it an ideal candidate for merging ("Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope."), and I was hoping this AfD could explore that. --Natural R_X 13:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning. “The list should be expanded with more content”, but now that it has adequate content it should be merged back into the article it’s supposed to replace? Useddenim (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never advocated for this list being expanded. I had created the rail and bus articles and thought those were more appropriate, you're the one that expanded it and have advocated for keeping it. --Natural R_X 00:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shehzad Ghias Shaikh[edit]

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

After cleaning up and removing unreliable references, I found there is nothing in the cited references that could make the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. The subject recived some press coverage and most of the cited references merely quote him. The subject clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's bio criteria so I nominate it for deletion. Note: the article itself was created and expanded by the subject himself. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, regarding opinion about !votes that provide no qualification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although on a weaker level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Express Tribune
Reuters
The Express tribune
Hindustan Times
News18
Pakistan Today

Almost all sources merely quote his name. --Saqib (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources found establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see that this person is a comedian who tells jokes and that some of them have landed him temporary media attention. However, there is no evidence in this article so far which would make him appear notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wiki-Coffee: Regarding "...landed him temporary media attention", note the dates I have added to the sources below, denoting how the subject has received ongoing coverage, rather than "temporary" coverage.

Regarding "...no evidence in this article so far", see WP:NEXIST; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Articles do not pass or not pass notability guidelines, subjects and topics do. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Express Tribune – June 16, 2015
Reuters – August 21, 2015
The Express tribune – December 27, 2015
Hindustan Times – March 31, 2016
News18 – September 27, 2016
Pakistan Today – September 29, 2016

Comment – Below is another source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Standup meets music". The News International. January 15, 2017.

@Northamerica1000: Wow your name to ping is a type-full. Of course, the existence of sources can substantiate the existence of a person. News sources are great for finding out what people do and do not do because they make money from printing about it. The assertion that simply because you are mentioned or written about externally from Wikipedia means that this on its own creates notability is something I do not agree with. The key elements to this article seem to be statements of two things. Firstly that the subject of the article is a comedian in Pakistan. Secondly that the comedian has received media coverage. Neither of those two components in of themselves appear to establish notability. Summarily, the articles core information to the reader attests that this is a man who is a comedian and has media coverage. Neither being a comedian or receiving news coverage seems to demonstrate notability of a living person in my mind. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of media coverage about subjects is a long-term, widespread norm on Wikipedia to establish notability. If you don't agree with notability guidelines, it comes across that you're basing notability on subjective, personal criteria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I dispute your assertion that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies stipulate that the notability of a living person can be determined solely on news coverage. One would first have to ascertain the credibility and objectivity of the news sources themselves. Moreover, you would have to move to assess the WP:NPOV of news coverage, which is very rarely the N part of POV. Summarily, basing the notion of notability for a living person on News coverage is not only dangerous but is factually erroneous. This gives control to News outlets so that they may establish a persons notability merely on the basis of writing about that person rather than having a burden of proof on them to credibly establish notability. In my opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Not News. Merely being referenced by news agencies does not solely establish notability, it establishes coverage. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, better delete Louis C.K. then, right? Just look at all those news articles used as references in the article! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:

Comparison of claims for notability between two articles
Louis C.K.	Shehzad Ghias Shaikh
Is a comedian	Is a comedian
Has written for famous and notable comedians	Has news coverage which validates he is a comedian
Starred and written notable works
Won notable awards
Ranked in the top 50 best stand up comedians

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as a comedian Shaikh's 'works' are his jokes, if these have been discussed/analysed by the newspaper articles then he is notable under WP:CREATIVE ie. "3.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." Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only three editors have expressed an opinion either way, so far. Let's hear from more people!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sushant Singh Rajput#Filmography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushant Singh Rajput filmography[edit]

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

Rajput hasn't acted in that many films. Perhaps this could be draftified if the page creator is really ambitious about a potential FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary fork Spiderone 09:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sushant Singh Rajput#Filmography, as this information is not contained there. So it's obviously neither "unnecessary" nor a "fork" as there's no duplication. postdlf (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Actually, the information was already there which can be recovered easily see this and the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD also did the same thing at Vidyut Jammwal and Nawazuddin Siddiqui. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change that this must be closed as a merge, because that content is not in the current version of the parent article (and we want to make sure that it is); it just makes the merge easier to perform. And it's all the more reason this should have been fixed through normal editing; undoing WP:SPLITs by merging back and redirecting is not a function of deletion. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sushant Singh Rajput#Filmography. No need for separate page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sushant Singh Rajput#Filmography; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Most of the filmography is already in the target article; so dealing with a "merge" tag is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bearcat is correct in saying that redirecting to one of the two shows she appears in would be in violation of WP:XY, and redirects like this are typically taken to RFD and deleted. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Matten[edit]

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

Non-notable actress that has appeared in a television show. There are no references to independent reliable sources with significant covrage. Notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference presently in article is just an interview. Notability has not been established. Antonioatrylia (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frontier (2016 TV series). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen328. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen328.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's had two roles that were "significant" enough to potentially be the expected redirect target — Frontier is in an WP:XY competition with Blackstone, so redirecting to Frontier would be a POV violation. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's more solid reliable source coverage about her than has been shown here, but an actress doesn't clear WP:NACTOR just because multiple roles are listed — she clears NACTOR when she's properly shown to have garnered significant non-trivial media coverage for those roles, and she just hasn't gotten there yet. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Mattos[edit]

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

I declined a CSD for this musician, but was reverted, so I'm bringing discussion here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX and this article is clearly a case of WP:G11, provided that there are no reliable WP:SOURCES cited. It is an advert of a rookie singer with no trusted sources to prove her WP:Notability (see WP:SPIP section). Andrespigariol (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and this look like reliable sources, but I don't know enough Portuguese to do work with them. I do know, however, that a verified recording contract with Raul Gil is hardly "a rookie singer". Have you checked the Portuguese Wikipedia? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coments Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont). They are reliable sources. NPOV Gospel Prime is one of the largest news portals in the religious segment and one of the most visited sites in Brazil.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::: Keep --Jcard30 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC) It has reliable sources that qualify it for minimum criterion 11 of NATIONAL ROTATION BY MAJOR TV NETWORK this makes her a notable artist. . Until they prove otherwise in plausible objections to the removal of the article. She is a television contest finalist from Brazil. Moreover has multiple sources citing his name on the subject including official website of the Television Channel SBT SBT just look carefully. Regards![reply]

::::::: Coment In addition, she released 2 discs through of the national indie record label that is a partner of the SBT channel and has as its founder the television presenter Raul Gil. Criterion 5 of Or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). and 9 of FINALIST THAT WAS IN BETMIDWEEN THE LAST NATIONAL CANDIDATES

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in WP:RS secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect target is proposed. Sandstein 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badlanders (TV series)[edit]

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

As per WP:TVSHOW: "...a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network." The subject of this article makes no mention of an airing network, let alone a premiere date! In other words, this series may actually be in pre-production, and thus does not qualify for an article. In addition, the lone "sourcing" used for this article is a sparse (and relatively new) IMDb entry – no other sourcing, to verify the notability of this series, is used. Finally, created by an editor that may have a WP:COI. Needs deleting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. "Badlands" appears to be a skateboard venue in Upland, California and a brand of skateboard and more, if you search search Google, including a 1999 Juice Magazine article. There seems to be a real phenomenon to be covered, and I think there should be a Wikipedia article about it, but I don't find it yet. Let's find or create that article now. Then the AFD can be concluded by mentioning the proposed-or-whatever TV series about it, and redirecting to the article about the phenom itself. I'm willing to create the article myself, will browse for more info. --do ncr am 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sourcing. Laced with unsourced claims regarding living persons. Borders on the speedy-able, since there is really no evidence that this is anything beyond planned web content. At best, this fails TOOSOON, with no information when or where this might be broadcast, who the performers are, and what stage of production this is in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar Shetty[edit]

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

May not meet the notability guidelines TJH2018 talk 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Manohar Shetty is absolutely notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Normally with non-Western poets the issue is finding reliable citations in English proving their notability. That is not an issue with Shetty. For example, he has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English along with being covered in The English Language Poetry of South Asians, A History of Indian Poetry in English, and many other books. I added some of these citations to the article but there are still many more to be added. We don't delete articles on notable subjects simply because the article still needs work or lacks citations which can be easily found.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am editing it. Please give some time. #100WikiDays fredericknoronha (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't doubt a certain notability of the writer, the article does not appear to be self-promotion, the article is near decent a state, and is being actively worked on. It may perhaps be best to tag it as necessary (for specific issues it has) and leave more time. PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Marthandavarma (novel). Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ananthapadmanabhan[edit]

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

Might be notable, but the article completely lacks context, and I was not able to find any sources myself. Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be a fairly important character in the Marthandavarma (novel) (see also his character entry), so I'll say keep. As is, the page hardly counts as an article though. Kakurokuna (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unsourced with very little content. The only link it references in the article Marthanda Varma makes no mention of this article. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to check out the article Marthandavarma (novel), where he plays a fairly substantial role. The real question here seems to be whether or not a separate page is merited, not a lack of sources. Kakurokuna (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should this be under arts, not biographies? It sounds like there's significant confusion between the fiction of the book and the history it's based on. Kakurokuna (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've altered it. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marthandavarma (novel) for now. Is currently unsourced and has no substantial content. Sandstein 08:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marthandavarma (novel) as that seems to be the most appropriate target. Does not have any indications of notability outside of the novel. Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avril Group. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saipol[edit]

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

The article does not justify any notability per WP:COMPANY TopCipher (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG: Biodiesel Magazine, Reuters, La France Agricole. More sources available in French business press. Appears that steps were missed in WP:BEFORE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it make sense to redirect it to Avril Group? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avril Group. This on its own fails WP:GNG. There is no widespread, in depth coverage. Just bits here and there. Wikipedia is not The Wall Street Journal. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avril Group; no independent secondary sourcing. Anything useful (of which I'm not convinced) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avril Group. Simply not enough in-depth coverage of the subordinate entity to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Club Med#Villages. Sandstein 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Club Med villages[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and none of the list entries are notable in their own right. Promotional only article at best Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Club Med#Villages and remove the promotional writing in that section, along with the 'tridents' which seem to be a non-neutral ratings system. At least someone did the work to compile the resorts, but an article breakout isn't justified here. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing worth merging. What you might be proposing is to redirect? I agree the Club Med#Villages section needs a good cleanup as does the rest of the article. Ajf773 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company's properties are listed in this article. I propose that the poor quality text in the section mentioned is replaced with the information here; comprehensive and easily sourced. Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the information is presented better here than in the article as-is; this is a common list presentation for travel articles of this type which doesn't violate NOTDIR in the least. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Club Med#Villages - agree with @Mrschimpf:. Merge and remove the promotional writing and the rating system. Definitely does not deserve it's own article, but the list itself, without the advert nature, could be useful in the main article. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show Yanagisawa[edit]

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

BLP tagged for a long time, no sources. Questionable notability. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a quick glance at the Japanese page indicates he's won several awards. I don't have the time right now to look at it and expand the article, so anyone can grab that info and add it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see several Google books and web hits. I also saw awards but did not translate them. He's Japanese, living/working in Japan, so more sources will likely be available in that language. meets GNG.104.163.144.60 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chopped and cleaned up the article a bit, and added three new refs. Over the years he has won many industry awards. See this Adweek mention of an award for his directing, for example. He has also won awards from the Japan Media Arts Festival, which is highly prestigious. I think it's clear a keeper, but that the CV awards listing has to be chopped down so that this article is not merely a CV.104.163.144.60 (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. He's won some awards, but there are no in-depth articles about him. No wide coverage of him, doing what he does. He's on his way, but not quite there yet. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has won multiple significant awards in his field for multiple works. These are not just "some awards", but D&AD Wood and Graphite Pencils (yes, unusual names for awards), a Clio Gold Award, an Epica Gold Award, two Cannes Lions Gold Awards, and LIA Gold and Bronze Awards. All of those together grant notability per WP:DIRECTOR by showing his works have "won significant critical attention". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the awards presented by Nihonjoe. Passes WP:DIRECTOR. Laurdecl ^talk 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Crayford[edit]

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

Fails GNG, as well as NMUSIC. Only claim of notability is an award that in itself is not notable. Has also had multiple reference issue tags since 2011. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After having done some fairly intensive searching, I'm still not sure about this. It is apparently an autobiography, having been started by user:Jocray and then further edited by User:Jojocray, both SPA's. Beyond the expected usual event listings and blog coverage and PR sources, there are numerous passing mentions to his work as a film composer in New Zealand films (see, e.g., [20]) and a PhD thesis also discusses him in this context. I am placing this information here for the closing admin to evaluate, as I am not convinced that this rises to the level of significant coverage in WP:RS but neither am I convinced that this is so lacking as to !vote delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion. Lacks sufficient sources, therefore fails SIGCOV. Despite apparent activity which might potentially pass GNG, lack of appropriate sources indicates that, at present, he fails GNG as well. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Jakóbiak[edit]

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

A minor Polish celebrity, and possibly on the wrong side of borderline when it comes to notability. Article created by WP:SPA (likely, paid-for promo). The subject is an expert in promotion, motivation speeches, etc., and the article is primarily a list of minor awards or nominations, but not a single one appears to establish notability. Neither is it clear from his very minor appearances in few music vidoes / voice roles in video games etc. He has two Internet (YouTube) talk shows. A bunch of passing coverage and mentions, and only one decently reliable and in dept-source: [21] - from a recently established Polish magazine pl:Pierwszy Milion, related to the Polish edition of Forbes. Still, WP:NBIO requires that the subject is shown to have received coverage from numerous sources, and that I don't see: lot of minor PR/etc. awards, mentions in passing, single reliable in-depth source. I think it's not enough (WP:TOOSOON? Maybe in few years he will get some more serious awards, or his shows will get on TV and he will become notable as a creator, etc.). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see anything worthwhile that would establush notability. Renata (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Inflatables[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are some mentions in the BBC, but nothing in-depth about the company that could establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW - Would ask the nomination be withdrawn. Despite the depth of coverage not being substantial, there are multiple independent sources which would allow this meet WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY as written, WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company has coverage in publications around the world. Meets WP:ORGCRITE and WP:AUD. Searching turns up a large number of sources: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Mostly about it products, some about company management. Spending more time could easily turn up more. Gab4gab (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Spending more time" makes the assumption that I did not spend time to find the sources that you did. In fact, I saw each reference you listed above. If you note view the nomination again, you will see that it is not about being sources, but the depth of those sources. Most of what you presented are advertisements and the rest are brief mentions. We need more than brief mentions that verify the existence in order to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources out there that establish notability. Article is poor though. I reviewed every one of the links posted by Gab4gab above. It looks like the links were the result of a search for "Avon Inflatables". Some of the sources listed fail the criteria (an Ad!) but, that said, a number that meet the criteria such as the BBC news link and the multiple magazine articles. Thank you for putting in the work. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did see these in fact, but they are all brief mentions and nothing that provides any details other than their existence. Maybe I am not seeing the same thing. Are you saying all of the ones you provided above meet WP:SIGCOV? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article in its current state does not pass GNG. There are very little sources cited. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & more sources The reason for deletion given was notability. Notability is determined by existing sources, not the current state of the article. The company produced products for consumer, comercial and miltary uses. There is a depth of coverage making it possible to write more than the brief stub that exists today. There are sources with more than brief mentions. The BBC article in particular is rather lengthy. Brief mentions should not be ignored. Articles written about inflatable boats during this company's years of production will frequently mention Avon Inflatables. That is an indication of notability. I suppose there will be differing views regarding whether a source is an ad. For example this [34] Great Gear article discusses inflatables in general and then goes into details about design distinctions of several competing brands including Avon. Doesn't look like an ad to me but I understand that opinions may differ. When I say that “searching turns up a large number of sources... spending more time could easily turn up more” I mean that by spending more time I could easily turn up more. Here are more sources:

This book contains a great deal of material on Avon including contributions to improved design features over the years. This book has a paragraph and more on Avon. This Crusing World has articles on RIBs (Rigid Inflatable Boats) that includes coverage of Avon. This Crusing World Guide To Inflatable Tenders article includes coverage of Avon. This book covers Avon Inflatables. This book mentions Avon Inflables in coverage of Materials for Inflatables and Hovercraft Designs. An article on factory expansion. Air polution article. US Navy inflatables order article. Dafen Park expansion article. Sources exist to expand the article. I believe there is more significant coverage not yet found. Gab4gab (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content to the article today using additional sources. Gab4gab (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: My main issue is with difference between the amount of sources and the depth of those sources. There are many sources and there is no denying that fact. The problem is that these sources are mainly mentions of the company and not about the company itself. However, the criteria also says that if the depth is not substantial (which it isn't), then using multiple independent sources can establish notability. Based on your cleanup, those sources are now evident. Thanks for taking the time to do so.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources that establish notability.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should evaluate the sources provided by commenters. Please note that a nomination with delete !votes cannot be withdrawn (see WP:WITHDRAWN).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Gab4gab. Nördic Nightfury 10:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon C Potter[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No evidence of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the General Notability Guideline demands. WP:BEFORE results were a mix of routine business announcements (PR) and biographical entries on corporate websites. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347 what exactly does Bloomberg and SMH lack in your opinion? Trailmixers (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg article is just a Bio and the SMH article is a re-printed Bloomberg press release. Neither count as "substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources" as required for Wikipedia articles. None of the sources do - and I've pointed this out in my initial nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- the bloomberg profile page is neither an article or a "bio".The information displayed on the page is created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. If you don't understand what that means, I have no problem discussing it... but marking the page for deletion without any discussion was completely unnecessary. Trailmixers (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, this IS the discussion. I've stated my rationale, which explains why this discussion is necessary. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Discussion is what the talk page is for. nomination is meant to take place after attempted discussion. In any event, S&P Global Market Intelligence is a reliable and independent source. Trailmixers (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Nominations for deletion do not require prior discussion. Anyway, as you're not the article creator, I see no value in arguing this point with you. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - The point is its obvious you followed me here. In any event, I've been working on a large addition for weeks. In a few days the page is going to develop substantially... which would be a lot easier to finish if I fellow editors were a touch more cooperative. Trailmixers (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take a step back for a moment you'd see that it's not all about you. Anyway, if you've been working on a large addition without finding sources that allow the subject of this article to meet the General Notability Guideline then you've probably been wasting your time. Now, I'm going to let other editors comment - for example, the creator of the article - because this isn't a personal thing & I have no interest in arguments. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could stop arbitrarily requesting the pages I'm working on to be deleted, without making an attempt at contribution or discussion, there wouldn't be an argument. Trailmixers (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just drop the stick - you're incorrect in your assertion. Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia editing. If you genuinely believe I'm targeting you, I suggest you raise a case at the Administrator's Noticeboard. If not, then focus your energy on improving Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep sources are credible. notability is clearly established. albeit there is a need for further citations, which the page was already marked for... Trailmixers (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very small cap company, 5 employees. Non-notable CEO. Uhooep (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 07:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. I note that Bahamas Petroleum Company is also currently at AfD. Both articles have been created by the same editor (Special:Contributions/Jacquequestowe), so the walled-garden situation is another reason to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization and education[edit]

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

There are so many things wrong with this article it is hard to know where to start.

The entire article consists of copy and pasted from this source. Appears to be properly licensed so cannot simply be deleted as a copyright violation.

We do have some articles that are almost entirely a copy of a source in the public domain, notably copies of articles from An earlier version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, by definition those were articles created to be standalone coverage of some subject. This is not such an example. While some of the material in this article may be a useful source for a general article, merely copying a few paragraphs from the middle of an article is really going to create a standalone article.

We expect a decent article to start with a well-defined subject. This one does not. The purported subject is globalization and education, but the first sentence suggests that the subject matter is the relationship between these two. However it doesn't contain a proper definition of the subject.

The tone of the article is intensely political. While that we should not negate the value of this document as a contribution to a neutral discussion, by using the text from this source and no other source, the reader is not presented with a balance neutral discussion of issues. While one might argue that this could be a starting point for an article, it should be developed off-line and much more extensively before even being considered as an article.

The tone is all wrong. Statements such as "The changes taking place have implications for education and signal the emergence of a new global context for learning." are political conclusions, which have a place in an intergovernmental advocacy document, but have no place in an encyclopedia.

As an aside, please note that the issues are broader than this single article. The sole editor of this article has been copying and pasting other sections of this report into a number of other articles. In some cases, that might be fully appropriate, as an added relevant piece of information in the context of the larger discussion but I think all of these addition should be scrutinized closely. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion rationale can be boiled down to "The tone is all wrong" since open sourced content can and should be integrated into Wikipedia where appropriate. Wikipedia is not perfect and issues with tone do not need to be resolved through AfD. Nev1 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator is "a consultant currently working with the Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, @John Cummings: I've alerted him. If there is a problem -- here and/or elsewhere -- with how passages from this report are being used to create articles, as the nominator suggests, John should be made aware. I also think it's incumbent upon John, in his role, to comment, one way or another -- as new articles such as Inclusive education in Latin America are continuing to be created, on his watch. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that John and the nominator have had their discussion elsewhere, at User_talk:Sphilbrick#Speedy_deletion_for_Globalization_and_education. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see John making any case to keep this particular article and I think the nominator has offered a persuasive rationale why these passages picked from a UNESCO article about the future of education don't amount to an encyclopedic treatment of the article topic. This isn't an individual editor creating a shaky stub about a topic, it's a UN agency doing so, and so I guess I have a slightly higher expectation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article does not fit into any of the deletion criteria, as Nev1 has said the tone needs some work but this is not a reason to delete the page. We are trying a new process so there are going to be some less than perfect results as we refine the mechanism of copying and altering text from external sources so its fits with the style of Wikipedia. I'm currently working on a guide here to guide people through the process which I would appreciate some feedback on. Thanks --John Cummings (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There is no entity called "Globalization and education," as a program, getting widespread, in-depth coverage. This is simply an essay based on a pamphlet. See WP:WWIS. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I guess it doesn't have to be a program. There is also currently Globalization and disease, which examines the impact of x on y. But I agree that this never rises above a short, somewhat disjointed essay based on a pamphlet. Globalization does touch on education. Has there been referenced content added there, where the larger community might be able to judge its applicability? I hope the goal here is not to spawn a lot of spinoff or fork articles using UNESCO's content, as opposed to integrating into the existing article structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be even more fair, Globalization and disease is synthetic. They've cobbled together sources on diseases like smallpox, and created an 'article' with a longer essay. Reads like a high school paper. These are promotional pieces, not genuine encyclopedia articles. There's nothing specific, it's just another globalization advert. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to respond to Shawn in Montreal and SW3 5DL comments:

Notability: There are several other academic sources for this subject, its possible they have been missed because of the non US spelling of globalisation. I've added these to the article talk page to assist editors in improving the article:

Publication: The publication is 84 pages long, has an ISBN and is published as a physical book and a digital version by a UN agency, It was also used as the framework for a consultation of civil society organisations at the European Parliament. Its a book, not a pamphlet.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John, point taken, but it's still an essay based on a book, (of essays), that is intended to promote a viewpoint. This is an encyclopedia, not a free advert, 'post your notice here' website. And that's what the 'article' reads like. What it really is, is the UN promoting itself. They know better than to use WP for that. Doesn't stop them because they're looking out for their agenda. But it's our job to look out for WP's agenda, and essays and promotional material, even from the UN, does not belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. And what do you think of the idea of starting by adding relevant referenced material to main articles such as globalization, which does touch on education, as opposed to immediately forking off to spin off articles like this? (My !vote remains as is). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a POV fork. This material is all pov, and synthetically cobbled together. These are not articles. They are promotional pieces. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a OR essay. Anything worth saving from it can be put into other articles in a NPOV fashion. South Nashua (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WRENN[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep - While this page is currently nominated for delation due to the fact a similar article had been posted months prior, upon reviewing the previous deletion discussion which came to an end on May 17th, 2016, one can see the reasoning behind the deletion was arguably a case of WP:TOOSOON due to the fact the articles about this subject were not as reputable as they needed to be in order for the page to remain in the database and the largest reason for keeping the page in the last discussion was to help establish a differentiation between two artists who both were going by the same name (it was established that neither were notable and therefore it was not Wikipedia's job to help differentiate the two). Yet, upon further observation the revised (and now current) version of this page does not mention that dispute, and instead stands on it's own, with a firm backing of reputable sources such as Billboard, Alternative Press (music magazine), and The Fader; therefore showing it no longer qualifies for deletion under the case of WP:TOOSOON. With the information stated above, as well of proof of two nationwide tours, features in prominent publications, and multiple musical appearances on TV shows airing on prime time networks (see: Fox, The CW, Showtime), it is obvious to see the previous reason for the deletion no longer applies and thus WRENN arguably should stay in the Wikipedia database. V.Putnam (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Struck !vote of blocked sockmaster. --Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The write-up and sources provided convince me there is notability here, as well as qualifying for significance under WP:NMUSIC. It's apparent the reason for previous deletion had been WP:TOOSOON, yet these issues have fixed since last posting. AdityaBahl (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Struck !vote of blocked sock. --Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: AdityaBahl is a Confirmed sock of V.Putnam. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/V.Putnam.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Reviews are not widespread, in-depth coverage. WP is not a publicity site. WP:WWIN. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, article subject needs patience, so far the references indicate existence rather than notability. The appearances in Billboard, Alternative Press, Fader, etc. are merely announcements of releases with linked video--pretty standard stuff these days. It does not represent significant coverage that would convey notability at the present time. I agree that at this point a wikipedia page for this subject is essentially promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bands often get a keep with more spurious coverage than this, but I don't think there's enough yet. The WP:NMUSIC guidelines are outdated for new artists, and only people with a major understanding of the nuances of music publicity are really likely to understand that almost anybody willing to pay for a PR representative will be covered by some notable sites, maybe even the odd newspaper. For me, if an artist isn't being interviewed and given features, the press isn't enough. This is just new video/stream spam, par for the course as Shelby above points out. KaisaL (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage, and just hasn't done enough yet to justify an article. The songs in TV shows are a bit of a claim to notability, but I don't feel there is enough for an article yet. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article's subject is found to not be notable enough for inclusion. — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Kiehn[edit]

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

Kiehn served honorably but without meeting WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. He does not appear in the index of Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose. There is no credit for a role in the television series in IMDb (problems with that site acknowledged). Kiehn was killed in action in February 1945. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - Kiehn's role in the company and especially his death is frequently discussed in books, but his name is usually given as "Bill Kiehn" (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). This is one in a series of AfDs about members of the Band of Brothers, and I'm unclear how to think about notability in these cases. The individuals feature in a number of historical and fictionalized accounts, and short profiles of their lives seem to exist in reliable sources. I understand that they are mostly notable for one thing and few/none meet NSOLDIER, but it seems to me their notability has persisted for a long time, especially since the movie Saving Private Ryan in 1998 and Band of Brothers (the book in 1993, the miniseries in 2001). That said, Google Books results suggest Kiehn only receives in depth coverage in the two Brotherton books currently cited in the article. I don't see in depth discussion of him elsewhere (but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some other recent Band of Brothers AfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Evans result: delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Mampre result: delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmo M. Haney result: No Concensus NB: Haney was a marine, and not in Easy company nor in any BoB media that I know of, but was a character in a different miniseries, sorry.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Boyle result: delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Cobb result: delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III (2nd nomination) result: delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans result: delete

At the List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans AfD, Jim in Georgia/GAArmyVet (who is the nom on most of these) noted that they believed none of the members of Easy are/were notable, so I expect this list to grow. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the nominator on the recent AfDs; Evans and Haney were not mine although I was on the side of deleting in both cases. I'm working from the Band of Brothers miniseries, which appears on every Easy Company related page. In one sense, that template is a guide to the ten episodes of TV and nothing more. If we're only talking about the TV production, we should delete all the references to Ambrose, Brotherton, Ooms, Alexander and Kingseed (authors/co-authors all) and work on describing only the characters. I don't spend a lot of time on TV-oriented pages, most it would seem most of the characters barely qualify because they're largely forgettable. If we're talking about real people, no one one the list qualifies under WP:SOLDIER except Robert Sink and he only because he was later promoted to brigadier general (and eventually to lieutenant general) after the events in Ambrose's book. Some of those who don't qualify under SOLDIER may well qualify under WP:GNG because of what came after WW II or other factors. Richard Winters was an inspiration to his men after the War. Some of the men worked for the CIA and were involved in the Vietnam War. I think Norman Dike was originally a hatchet job by Ambrose and the men of Easy. I'm beginning to wonder about Herbert Sobel. There are more AfDs to come.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reply. I bring up the book, movie, and miniseries in order to contextualize the rise in popularity of material on the company. In my opinion, these figures might not have articles on them without that popularity. In a sense, they are a sort of fancruft, but maybe that is the wrong word. However, given the popularity is there, the articles do not seem to fail the three core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:POV, so the issue is GNG and the best interest of our readers. Further, the sources seem to me to be basically reliable, so the GNG question has to do with depth. I agree that not every member of Easy Company is automatically suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm not sure where the line is, but for me, this individual seems to have been a substantial character in a number of different tellings of the story of the company. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fancruft" may be a good word. Without the series and, before it, the book we wouldn't be having this conversation because many of these guys were no better soldiers than men we've never heard of. They're also a lot better than some. I don't know if we have a page about the criminal enterprises in Paris operated by Americans who had deserted; that casts a whole new light on the "greatest generation." <sigh> I really think the (non-existent) "BoB Project" can be improved by saying less. After all, people who want to read about the series can go to the Wikia project, which is actually pretty good as wikis go.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with the others; the fact is, many served and many died; just not notable for a stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm striking my !vote. I've been thinking about this a bit more and looking over the other members of the company, and I think a possible alternative is to treat BoB as a "franchise". We have lists of characters of other franchises, such as List of characters in the Garfield franchise or whatever similar franchise list you like, but it turns out that having an especially long article, E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) pretty much covers most of what one might want to know from such a list. A link to a roster could someday be added to that page, and a list of non-notable individuals isn't really necessary (and is against policies and consensuses). Many individuals would still have their own page, though, and be listed at that page. Here are my guesses at what my criteria would be if more BoB individuals were sent to AfD:
- An individual may be of enough historical significance that they would meet GNG even without the BoB "franchise" publications. For instance, Donald Malarkey may be borderline notable due to having a local political career, being a public speaker, and having numerous profiles of him as one of the last surviving members of the group. I don't think there are many of these individuals, but a few, probably all of them make for suitable pages.
- An individual may just miss SOLDIER #1, but arguably meet SOLDIER #4 or #5, such as Richard Winters, William Guarnere, and possibly some of the company commanders. They might not be known about without the BoB franchise, but BoB is reliable enough and gives quite a bit of depth about their military actions as well as some personal life background. I think most of these could make for suitable pages.
- An individual may be included as a character and be mentioned in non-BoB franchise materials and have had a somewhat public career. An example is David Kenyon Webster, who published some writings and his diary was posthumously published. Because this extra information passes V, and their presence in "franchise" publications is in depth, I think these can make for suitable pages.
- A related group to the previous two are individuals who are only mentioned in non-BoB franchise materials because they are one of the last surviving members of the group. An example is the now deleted Leo Boyle. For these, I would !vote weak keep for at least some, but am not sure.
- It could be argued that the rest are notable only as characters in the "franchise", and thus would fit in a list of characters. Such lists is a bit crufty, but that can be ok. I will not be creating one, and if one were created, it would have to be done with care given the consensus at the E Company talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans. I would probably not !vote delete for these, as I couldn't be sure that they do not pass on one of the above criteria in an offline capacity, but I would understand why they were up at AfD and I would not, generally, oppose their deletion. Kiehn seems to fit into this group.
This is just an explanation of why I am striking my !vote and an attempt to express my feelings in advance of anticipated related AfDs. I hope it is understood that I feel these criteria are within the spirit and letter of existing Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is meant to be helpful, and is not an attempt to create new deletion criteria. I am also adding a related comment at Jim in Georgia/GAArmyVet's talk page. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we are to treat BoB as a franchise, then we need to edit all the pages and strike all references to the biographies of the men involved. Anything that happened before or after the war, except for things mentioned in the voiceovers at the end of the tenth episode, becomes moot. Even the reminiscences of the real men are historical rather than the historical fiction of the series, which compressed characters, created characters (the Belgian nurse), and reassigned tasks performed from one character to another. Then we can selectively created pages for the men who rate them under general notability (Sink is the only person who qualifies under WP:SOLDIER (and, yes, I know it's an essay). Winters may be arguable).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kiehn doesn't appear by name in the series, so we can do a speedy delete on his page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [Sorry in advance for the long reply] By franchise, I mean that while the books are more or less reliable sources for the historical individuals, they can be treated as a something more akin to a single thing. N is built on three parts, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. V is satisfied when WP:RS are used. I think these books and their authors are more or less RS. NOR is satisfied when coverage is in depth and not primary (being in depth enough to write with sufficiently detail also allows an article to avoid WP:NOT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE), which is satisfied for many of these individuals on the basis of these books. NPOV might be trickier. These individuals are well known because one author thought their story was a good case to show the general point of what life was like for WWII soldiers (or something like that). To say that their case is representative is, then, the POV of that author. If another author agrees, then there is a question whether we have multiple points of view. If we treat all of the books as a "franchise", that is think of subsequent books are retellings/sequels/spin-offs, some by different authors, then all we have is the POV of the initial author and POVs that are somewhat derivative. Thus, an independent source would help to show the individual is well known, even if they are still only known for being a part of the franchise. Of course, if an individual played an important role in a historic event, then while we must take care in how we present the POV of the author on that event, the individual's notability can be established within the franchise, or even within a single book (NB, if they played a significant role in a battle, something like a silver star could be akin to a second POV on their importance).

I don't think this is the same as treating them as a single source, nor do I think that the collection should be treated as fictional. Rather, I would say that the contribution to the notability of a figure which has in depth coverage in a BoB related non-fiction book must be dealt with in a nuanced way. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I think we're arguing policy over notability when we should be asking whether we need a page on a soldier who enlisted, served, and died in an artillery barrage whose probable highest award was a Good Conduct Medal. There were some interesting people in Easy Company who went on to serve in Korea and Vietnam, helped develop our special operations capability, and worked for the CIA. It's just that Kiehn isn't one of them.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean to be arguing, I was just trying to explain why I struck my !vote and what my thoughts are on potential related AfDs. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should be more precise; I meant arguing as in the presentation of arguments.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He strikes me as a rather NN soldier, who happens to have been chosen to be portrayed in a mini-series. That does not stop him being NN. Possibly merge/redirect to series Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lush for Life[edit]

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

Two-year print run. A single feature in the Tampa Bay Times is nothing spectacular. Please ivote "delete" with Fake News! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure !voting via hashtag is really "a thing". At least I hope it isn't.
The magazine appears to have been open satire, which is not the same thing as fake news.
Delete - Pretty blatantly promotional. "Print circulation of 20,000" is self-sourced and dubious at best, and even by their own claim, 10,000 of that was basically stacks of papers they left at bars and cafes. Nearly everything in the article is self sourced, and...well...that seems likely because that's pretty much the only sourcing available, which means a big fat delete. TimothyJosephWood 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie_Media_scandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is obviously meant to sully. The company had no presence on Wikipedia prior to this page being drafted. In the current state of actual scandals and fleecing, it doesn't register. It is listed on the Category:Political_scandals page along with federal and international criminals,sex scandals and murders. I do not feel as if it adds any value to Wikipedia as a whole. Seeger7 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You tried deletion on this article already once, and I don't see anything that's changed. Political scandals can be extremely graphic, or as seen here, benign and clean reading for the whole family; this is well-sourced and outside of three edits since the first was closed, the nominator has become a WP:SPA pushing for deletion of this article. WP:GNG is met in my eyes. Pinging @Doncram: as the only discussor on the first nom to see if they've changed their position. Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1: There are more articles on scandals than I am willing to review, to see how big this one is relative to others. There's no list-article of political scandals in which the topic appears; it was categorized in Category:Political scandals which I have just revised to put it into Category:Political scandals in the United States (there isn't a separate subcategory for the state of Washington yet). --do ncr am 03:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: It seems that Moxie Media (currently a redlink) is in the news enough to warrant an article; i am not sure though as it is my impression that PR firms' articles are a general problem area. I would imagine the firm doesn't like this Wikipedia article existing, but it is factual AFAICT, and the Wikipedia article doesn't appear in the first few page of Google search results on "Moxie Media". I suspect the firm could have put effort into ensuring that. Some more eyeballs on this from regular Wikipedia editors who are knowledgeable about PR firm issues and paid editing and the like would be helpful, but offhand I don't know who to invite to take a look here. --do ncr am 03:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems sourced well enough. There's this account in Washington State Wire that is not yet used as a source, too. --do ncr am 03:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid deletion rationale provided. Article needs improvement, not deletion. The sources are out there. Hopefully the nominator will learn to accept the outcome of deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Rinkeby riots[edit]

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

A minor event that lacks encyclopedic relevance or long-term societal impact. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:NOTNEWS applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per fact that this was part of a bigger issue of riots in Swedish suburbs at that time and present. Good sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources can obviously be found in abundance in the Swedish press, but this needs to be part of a larger article on social problems and violence in Swedish suburbs (or something like that). In isolation, an article like this has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Hegvald (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; briefly mentioned in the Rinkeby article already and a sentence or two which is RS cited could be added therein. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable outside of just "immigrant-related crime." I don't think it needs its own page, but I agree that it could be briefly mentioned in the Rinkeby article. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a modest expand, source. Riot was widely covered at the time (in 2010 a riot in Sweden was novel and shocking) and widely covered again in the context of the 2017 Rinkeby riots and Trump's remarks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added an empathetic perspective on these riots form recent book by nonviolent social justice advocate George Lakey here: [35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note ~~that Lakey may be correct about this riot by immigrant youth being the first such riot in Sweden.~~ Certainly it is part a growing series of immigrant neighborhood riots in Sweden, and as the apparant earliest in this series, it gains significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lakey doesn't say that it was the first in Sweden, not even that it was the first in Stockholm, only that it was "in recent years". This article on the Swedish Wikipedia list a number of riots, though not all are youth riots. The first such that I found was The student riot in Lund 1793 and there have been a number of notable riots in recent years. So, there is no notability for being the first of series. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wow, there have been a lot or recent riots by immigrant youth in Sweden. at least as far back as the 2009 Malmö Davis Cup riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that not only academic books such as Artifacts and Allegiances: How Museums Put the Nation and the World on Display, University of California Press by Peggy Levitt; but also more popular accounts such as Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right-and How We Can, Too, by activist George Lakey, Melville House Publishing, are usually regarded as strong arguments supporting notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, certainly, international news coverage of a riot 7 years after it happened meets an important standard of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Ongoing coverage during rioting in Rinkeby in 2013 and again in 2017 sparked renewed coverage of the 2010 riots by press around the world. The fact that thousands of people were prompted to visit this page at the time of the 2017 Rinkeby riots shows the utility to our users of keeping articles on riots past. In fact, noting that this page was created not in 2010, but in 2013 makes it highly probably that this riot came to creator's attention due to the fact that this 2010 event was widely covered by the media in 2013.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A notable riot is something bigger (bigger events, bigger coverage in media) like 2013 Stockholm riots. So, as per "Wikipedia is not news", I think we should ~~delete this page and~~ add the information to "background" of "2013 Stockholm riots". Kavas (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We follow sources in determining notability; in this case, news coverage in English-language searches has been global, with a major wave of coverage of this 2010 even in February 2017. In addition to coverage in sources like the book discussed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion to "delete this page and add the information to" is irregular. Normal procedure would be Redirect and Merge in order to WP:PRESERVE both the usefulness of the search term "2010 Rinkeby riots" , (gSearch: [36]), I continue to think article should be kept on the grounds of coverage that has been global, ongoing and in-depth, but if it is to be merged, a better target might be to a title like: Rinkeby riots, 2010, 2013, 2017 accomplished by merging this article with 2017 Rinkeby riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to Redirect and Merge after reading this. Kavas (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just a point of etiquette: when changing an iVote at AfD, it is usual to ~~your original iVote~~. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, but I think this content should be merged with other similar articles under some appropriate title. --Hegvald (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have added three blue-linked analysts giving post-game analysis of this riot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the mention in the book is about one sentence; the other two analysts appear to be discussing the immigrant rioting in general, not this specific event, unless I'm mistaken. I still don't see how this particular riot stands out and why it should have a stand-alone entry. To preserve article history, perhaps it could be redirected to 2017 Rinkeby riots? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Levitt and Quinn cite this riot specifically, and discuss it in the context of immigrant rioting not "in general" but very specifically in Sweden in recent years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Although Nom and the early iVoters above saw a very brief article with 3 sources [37] I have expanded the article significantly. I did not attempt to find Swedisn sources, rather, the article is sourced ot international coverage of this riot the year it occurred, a second round of coverage in 2013, and a third in 2017, in addition to books. I assume that an editor working in Swedish would find more discussion, but I do think that the article as it now stands passes all normal standards, and is, both encyclopedic and useful as documenting an early example of the problems of immigrant integration now confronting Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like something sourced and sufficiently notable. This page could be merged with 2017 Rinkeby riots if there are sources covering them as related events. My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets simplest of standards Cllgbksr (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Blowfish (disambiguation). I'll change the dab page entry to point to Brandeis University#Publications per suggestions. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Blowfish[edit]

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

No independent media coverage. http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2011/march/lawrenceinauguration.html Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blowfish (disambiguation), per Michig's suggestion below, and change the entry there to point to Brandeis University#Publications, where it's already mentioned, and maybe add a sentence or so.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC) revised 15:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I oppose a redirect, which would just get knocked down on WP:XY grounds; how would this plausibly be a more appropriate redirect term than to Hootie and the Blowfish? Ravenswing 03:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blowfish (disambiguation), and change the entry for the publication there to link to the University. The dsiambiguation page would seem the most appropriate target. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose this, though. Ravenswing 10:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this suggestion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calan Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable racing driver. Fails Motorsport guidelines of WP:NSPORT, no non-trivial independent references. Drdisque (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Fails the sport guideline and WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSPORT. formula 3 racer with no wins. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] www.fireflymedia.cz. "Costa Rica | Flags of countries". flagpedia.net. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

[2] "Costa Rica Flag - World Flags 101 - Costa Ricans Flags". www.worldflags101.com. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

[3] "Costa Rica Flag colors - Costa Rica Flag meaning history". costaricaflag.facts.co. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

[4] "Costa Rica". flagspot.net. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

[5] "Colors of Flags". www.crwflags.com. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

[6] "Vexistats" (PDF).

[7] ttp://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2002/12/09/daily50.html

[8] "Eatzi's Adds Preston Royal Location for 2017 Plans - Food & Beverage Magazine". fb101.com. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 24 March 2017.

[9] Wilonsky, Robert (16 November 2006). "Romano Back in Business...at Eatzi's". dallasobserver.com. Retrieved 24 March 2017.

[10] "THE MARKETING 100: EATZI'S: PHIL ROMANO". adage.com. Retrieved 24 March 2017.

[11] ttp://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2017/02/10/phil-romanos-eatzis-lands-atnorth-dallas-shopping.html

[12] "Work to begin next month on Eatzi's near Fort Worth Zoo". star-telegram.com. Retrieved 24 March 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]