Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 May	29 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Schlappig[edit]

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

Article appears to be self-created; person is not well-known or important within industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.226.106 (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

created using rationale in prod that was added by same ip that added an AFD template. ~ GB fan 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor blogger, most of the references are to his own webpages. Does not appear to meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G5. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal for more details. Mkdw ^talk 23:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Degioia[edit]

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

Non-notable person, entirely sourced to primary sources and press releases. While gnews gives a handful of hits, they're entirely PR or passing mentions with no real coverage. Fails GNG and just about any other inclusion criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete: Per nom. Waggie (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Gomes[edit]

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

Procedural nomination only. I declined the prod because this has previously been to AFD and a CSD G4 had already been declined because the article is not substantially the same as the deleted article. SpinningSpark 23:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No moren otable now than he was then.ewill of course become notable if he doeswin the election. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cameron (American screenwriter)[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to pass GNG. I'm not sure his one film is notable either, but if it is, notability is not inherited. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I represent Peter Cameron, and have assisted in contributing to this page. He is a working screenwriter attached to increasingly high profile talent and projects, from Guillermo del Toro to Robert Kirkman. He appears elsewhere on IMDb, on projects where I have contributed nothing. Here is a link to his IMDb for sake of validity.^[1] Edwardburton (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Edward Burton[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV for an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sttration Juniors FC[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football club. Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sttration Juniors? Didn't whoever created this article mean Stratton Juniors? Regardless this is a non notable local league football club. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:FOOTYN#Club notability. Trout the IP who dePRODded without addressing the issues. Cabayi (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't competed in a national competition nor has it had enough coverage to pass GNG Spiderone 07:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plays at too low a level to be notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluru. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pathebada[edit]

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

Not notable. A normal residential area within a city. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable neighbourhood; not an administrative district. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Merge with Eluru city article.—IM3847 (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IM3847 is the original creator of this article, I think his opinion should be considered. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Eluru where it can be mentioned as a neighborhood of the city. Without sufficient independent notability, neighborhoods are covered in the larger area MB 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment – According to the latest census of India, the above place is a slum with a population of 875, as one can verify from the page no. 858 of this district census handbook, which was published by the government of India. I guess this report also listed it as a slum. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WannaCry ransomware attack. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MalwareTech[edit]

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

BLP1E Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WannaCry ransomware attack, per WP:BLP1E. ansh 666 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Although I would favour deleting then creating a redirect if necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - err on the side of privacy here. The man is only notable in relation to a single event and hasn't enjoyed the publicity since. EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Eesa Niamatullah[edit]

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

This person does not meet the notability guidelines for BLPs (basic criteria) and is relatively unknown. Also, the page contains contentious material which is poorly sourced. References used for this page are trivial coverage by secondary sources.

This person fails to meet the additional criteria for notability as well. The person has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, and has not been nominated for such an award several times. The person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The person does not have an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. Mujaddouda (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say Delete. There are some claims to notability here (e.g. being interviewed at Davos, being nominated for a notable award), and there is some coverage from independent sources, but most of it doesn't focus on him or distinguish him from other Muslim religious leaders. On balance, I don't think it adds up to enough to pass WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I say Delete as well. Simply put he is not notable and none of the references provided suggest he is.--الدبوني (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous discussion on the talk page; when there are no sources to improve an article, the subject can't be notable enough to include.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluru. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatraopet, Eluru[edit]

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

Notability issue. Normal residential area in a city. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try also alternate spellings:

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

Redirect, probably to Eluru. This could be notable automatically as a populated place in West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, but I am not immediately finding its population. It has a post office, the Venkata Rao Peta post office, e.g. see info here. Since there is no substantial content to the article, redirecting to Eluru, preferably to a section on its neighborhoods, won't lose much, until there is substantial content with sources to create a separate article. --do ncr am 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eluru per doncram's good suggestion. --Lockley (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pen family[edit]

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

Content-free unsourced stub. All relevant information is already available at dab page Le Pen. No source is provided discussing the family independently from political activities of the three members mentioned. — JFG ^talk 14:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Le Pen, unfortunately it's impossible to choose between Jean-Marie and Marine as a redirect target at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:deletion is not cleanup. Do you doubt that the Le Pens form a political family, and that that political family is a notable family? Clearly the article needs cleanup, and clearly the topic itself is notable. It just needs to be completely rewritten. A start would be WP:SUMMARYSTYLE sections for the three politicians. Then we can add more about the political grouping. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. A good start would be to find WP:RS discussing them as a family. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The family clearly exists, any matter pertaining to the family as a whole would need new RSes, summarizing the family members (and that would be supported by RSes since they already state how these three are related) would not involve any synthesis, existing sources from the personal biography articles are enough to support summarizing that they are related to each other, and that each is politically active, and that each is a member of the National Front. That would be cleanup. Additional material treating the family as a whole would need to be added, with new sources. So, cleanup is not deletion. Cleaning it up does not involve synthesis, it would create a stub or start class article instead, sorely needing family-only material. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I putted some sources about the family. Torygreen84 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have articles about political families - for instance, Kennedy family and Bush family - and those are well written, clearly notable, and in line with guidelines. So it absolutely can be done without violating WP:SYNTHESIS. The question is whether the Le Pen family rises to the same level as those two examples. If so, it should be kept and rewritten (remember, AFD is not cleanup, so the current state of the article is irrelevant). If not, I would support a redirect to Le Pen over deletion. I don't know enough about French politics to know whether they qualify. Smartyllama (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect is the best solution at this stage. — JFG ^talk 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be re-written, but with four or five family members, including Marie and her father, seems comparable to other political family pages (like the Bushes and the Kennedys) for example Kennedy family and Bush family Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this would be feasible is we had sources discussing them as a family. There are plenty such sources for the Kennedys, the Bushes or the Clintons, I don't see one for the Le Pens, so anything we write here would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a justifiable article given the French establishment's fondness for dynastic continuities of power / influence / employment / celebrity status / etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if only as a disambig page (which is what the French Wikipedia has it as) or redirect - it's at least useful for navigation. This would also meet notability threshold for an article, given the family dynamics of this prominent family have been well-reported on (father clashing with daughter, relationships with the niece, etc.). Neutrality^talk 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a disambig page is fine, and we already have one: Le Pen, with the three generations represented. This is why I thought this "family" page is useless (unless of course some sourced material is added). I don't care personally whether we have an article on this family, but if we do it should be sourced not synthesized. — JFG ^talk 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a redirect given that the family article is pretty bad. But I certainly want to leave the door open for a future better version of this article, given that there are sources that directly talk about the family that could sustain an article. E.g.,

Cécile Alduy, The Devil's Daughter, The Atlantic (October 2013).
The Economist explains: The Le Pen family feud, The Economist (April 13, 2015).
Dov Alfon, Le Pen Family Feud Deteriorates Into Night of Long Knives After Crushing Loss in French Election. Ha'aretz (May 9, 2017).
Paul Ames, France's far-right leading family is a mess of amazing gossip right now, GlobalPost (published by Public Radio International)
Moira Weigel, Marine Le Pen's Memoir: a Dutiful Daughter's Sanitizing of Far-Right Politics: In 'À Contre Flots,' published in 2006, Le Pen reduces politics to family loyalty, New Yorker (May 6, 2017).

I'm sure much more in the French language, of course. Neutrality^talk 04:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for scouting those. Perhaps some day someone will actually write the beginning of a real article based on such sources. The current stub deserves only a redirect to the dab page. I am actually quite surprised that the French Wikipedia hasn't built anything but a list of the family members either. — JFG ^talk 08:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The fact that three or four notable people are related to each other is not, in and of itself, the definition of a notable political family — the ability to get the group over WP:GNG as a group is what matters. For example, there are many more notable Kennedys and many more notable Bushes than there are notable LePens — and in both cases, significant numbers of those notable family members don't even have the main family surname (see, frex, all the Smiths and Lawfords and Beales and Shrivers and Schwarzeneggers and Schlossbergs in the Kennedy family tree) and thus would never be locatable from the base Kennedy surname page in the first place. But all we've got here is four notables, of whom three are already on the surname page LePen as it is and the fourth is Marine's husband; there are only two people on that dab page outside of this group; and we have to depend on non-notable failers of WP:NPOL to pad this list out with anybody else — so that's just not enough noteworthy content to justify a standalone list of the politicians as a separate topic from the surname page. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neutrality's research and reasoning above. The article seems to me a good candidate for expansion. --Lockley (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Brightwings[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion in 2008, but was kept on the grounds of meeting WP:NBAND. At the time, the criteria for NBAND were somewhat looser/more prone to being misinterpreted. Participants argued that since some of the band's music had appeared in some TV shows, the band passed NBAND criteria 10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."

It seems clear to me however that simply having one's music be in the background in a TV show doesn't meet the criteria. What qualifies is having one's music be the theme song, or performing in a TV show, as in, the band is onscreen performing. As well, NBAND has been clarified to advise that if C10 is the only claim to notability, WP:BLP1E applies and a redirect to the main article is more appropriate.

Anyway, with the previous keep rationale out of the way, this band fails NBAND and GNG. No reliable sources located to indicate they are notable in and of themselves. All the sources in the article are citations showing they played with other people.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assertations are all very trivial and no good sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block City Wars[edit]

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

Non-notable game per WP:NVIDEOGAMES and WP:GNG, no significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced promotional junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Coverage is weak in the VGRS custom search. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of importance, and I couldn't find any notable coverage.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bully (2011 film). MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Ty Smalley[edit]

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

The article lacks citations and I'm not sure about this one in terms of notability. I'd listed it as proposed deletion, but I'm moving it for discussion because the article creator is still actively editing. —Guan aco 17:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bully (2011 film). I suspect the film is the source for the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The redirect proposal has its merits, but it should be noted that Ty Field-Smalley's sad story received substantial national coverage before that 2011 documentary, e.g. this lengthy CNN interview and assorted related stories such as [1][2][3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abayomi Rotimi Mighty[edit]

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

Highly promotional article that does not establish notability per WP:GNG (some coverage of a speech he gave as 16-year-old in 2001, which the article claims has similar impact as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream", and one later blog post). HaeB (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. As a youth he made some speeches and founded several organizations of unclear notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything that would make him notable, and only very minor coverage for GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will restore to user space or draft space upon request, if someone commits to continue to working on it to address the issues raised during this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Fagan (educator)[edit]

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

I have serious concerns about this page. First of all, it appears Mr. Fagan does exist, and at least some of the information in the article is verifiable from published sources. However, the bulk of this article is cited to this webpage which claims Mr. Fagan "agreed that the students could mount a Wikipedia entry about him," which entry was reproduced on that page. The bulk of the text of this article and that one are identical. This one was created first, and it seems they copied us, meaning this isn't a copyvio but is a particularly egregious example of circular referencing. That page also says that, "Informed consent, an audio recording, and extended paper documentation for the interview are available at the Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University." and it provides a link to [4], which gives a result of page not found. A search on that website for "David Fagan" yields no results So it seems this article is largely based on original research consisting of an interview with the subject by his students who then wrote the Wikipedia page, which was copied to the Houston ARCH website, and then the Wikipedia page proceeded to cite its mirror as a source. Next, most of the rest of the sources cited in the article are dead links. At least one sentence in the article (concerning the school he taught at) appears to be inaccurate. I'm able to find several mentions of him in various magazines and websites focusing on athletics in the gay community, but they are passing mentions, not enough to build an article around. He seems to be at least marginally notable, and I hesitated to nominate this for deletion, but I really don't think this article is salvageable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted the page while working Category Stale Drafts [5]. It is impossible to make headway there if you try to fix every page you find. I appreciate editors like ONUnicorn who consistently dig into topics like this and improve articles. As ONUnicorn also found, the subject appears marginally notable but I agree the page has issues, and if the issues can't be resolved, I trust ONUnicorn's judgement here. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, circular references are not indicators of notability, because Wikipedia is not an RS. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be restored to User:Ben.zarsky/David Fagan (educator) as opposed to deleted if it is found unsuitable for the mainspace per WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4), i.e. If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace (move). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if demoted to userspace it will then be eventially CSD'd as a NOTAWEBHOST violation, G4 as recreation of material deleted in a deletion discussion, or sent to MfD as promotional for covering a non-notable topic or maybe just blanked. Article made it to AfD and needs to be fully dealt with in AfD, not shoved off so more editors can waste more time on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNG not met. Moving back to user space would be pointless - as stated above, this article is from a stale draft. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches do no reveal substantial notability in any mainstream source. Banglange (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPL Cup[edit]

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

Without any references and any links, a reader has no idea what this is about. It appears to be about cricket, but it doesn't indicate what teams or players, let alone whether they are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep plenty of sources could be found like here, and here, and checking sources like Bing News such as here returns numerous results. The article should be improved, and worked upon, currently it's a stub, but that doesn't warrant a deletion. Donald Trung (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Just searching for varying results for 'SPL' doesn't source this in the least. I have no idea what cricket tourney the article is going on about. Your sources don't give me any context. Most hits for the SPL deal with the Scottish Premiership. Thus, unless the article creator can tell us what this list of statistics and abbreviations actually are, I'm asking for a delete. Nate • (chatter) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N. I researched various SPL Cup cricket tournaments, and none of them are notable. Saudi Premier League might be the most significant, yet still not notable enough for a WP article. This doesn't match the scorecards from that competition. My best guess is that this article is about some local indoor cricket tournament on a social or recreational level. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jack. Nothing to verify this or to show any hint of notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only am I confused but as a reader, I have no idea what this is as my first thought would be the Scottish Premiership in football. With that thought and barely any realiable sources I saying a Delete Matt294069 is coming 03:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Kulling[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that she won a literary award ("North Dakota Library Association") which is not notable enough to constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass in and of itself. There are no reliable sources being cited here to get her over WP:GNG, either, as the article is referenced entirely to GoodReads and her primary source profiles on the websites of her own publishers, with no evidence of media coverage about her being shown at all. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- an actual notability claim, and the reliable sourcing to support it, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:AUTHOR, a subject may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [...] covered by multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In my opinion, Kulling has created many well known books, as can be evidenced by the number of third party sources giving references to her work. For example, her book was listed by The Boston Globe amongst The Best Picture Books of 2014.[6] Similarly, her work was amongst the finalists for the Governor General’s Literary Awards,[7][8] apart from being amongst the finalists for the Silver Birch Awards.[9] I'm not saying that these are or aren't notable things; I'm bringing these to the fore to support the fact that her work is very well known, as required per AUTHOR. Additionally, her work has been the subject of multiple reliable reviews, for example - [10][11][12][13][14] This seems to qualify the subject on WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. I can include these sources within the article, in case the subject is kept. Thanks. Lourdes 15:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Criteria is met given given the significance of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz4477 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've begun adding these reviews and others I've found to the entry--there are quite a number of them, passes AUTHOR for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble Vocal Katimavik[edit]

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

I have been unable to find references to independent sources about this choir. There's an article in the French encyclopedia, but it is equally unreferenced. Perhaps another editor who is more familiar with Quebec French sources will find something written about the group. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It existed and performed but as noted above there is nothing to be found in terms of significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps there are news archive hits I can't find but it fails GNG and WP:BAND for all that I can see. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This is a highly promotional article about an individual that does not meet notability requirements. Of the six references, 2 (yfsmagazine and evusa) are non-independent and 3 (dailymail, theverge, manoroflondon) include only passing mentions of Mathew. The remaining reference appears to be a low quality gossip site. Peacock (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an overly promotional page & glorified CV on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi, sorry for coming here late, I have found some more credible sources from Buzzfeed and other magazines article. I'll fix all issues soon, please give me some time to learn. I'll fix everything. Please don't delete yet. Thank you very much and your help is appreciated. Nuck2u (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all I fixed everything that was asked hello dear admins/editors, please have a look at the page now. I tried to fix everything that had issues. Categories updated, promotional terms removed, added new references from valuable resources, linked page internally to cover orphan tag. Hope so I met all the requirements. It is my kinda start here hope I did well, thank you for your suggestions and help, and I think he is enough notable as per his fan following and Fashion Icon status, well, please decide and guide further. Thankyou Nuck2u (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant spam or autobio. Sources are churnalism, routine directory listing, PR disguised as gossip, or written by Mathew about himself. None of this establishes notability. Grayfell (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, I don't know Mathew wrote them or who, I see them as independent resources, if Buzzfeed and all other well-known websites are not valid then please explain me the policies? I just saw those in a recent research so I thought to fix it. There are many articles out here with a single or no reference, anyway, none of my concerns. What do you call notability? I saw him as a fashion Icon and celebrity and well known within the elite class that's why I thought to create an article. I think your comment is Biased as you are judging and expressing ambiguity that all those articles are self-written while they clearly state that who wrote them. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia because I am planning to contribute my readings and research about people. Please explain! like if someone praises Donald trump's qualities in the article it means Donald Trump wrote that article about himself? Nuck2u (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's Donald Trump now? Be realistic. See WP:BIO and WP:GNG for an understanding of what Wikipedia's guidelines are.

The Buzzfeed article is "community" content, meaning it has no substantial editorial oversight or fact-checking, nor is it useful for establishing notability, since it's essentially user generated content. It's also an interview, which is very poor for notability, since it's not independent of Mathew.

The YFS Magazine ("Young, Fabulous, and Self-Employed") article was written by Mathew, and is likewise not independent. It's also devoid of substance or real insight, which makes it hard to take seriously, but that's only tangentially relevant. Since he wrote it himself, it is not usable for establishing notability.

The rest of the sources are either listings or unreliable. The Essex Star may or may not be reliable, but even if it is, it's a just a gossip column. C&F is neither neutral, nor clearly reliable.

I don't know if Mathew was directly involved in writing this Wikipedia article, but it's promotionally written and thinly sourced, so it's indistinguishable from spam. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your decisions are based on assumptions and self-thoughts. All things you shared proves that he desrves the page. See the section of WP:ENT what point 2 and 3 says fits his profile. He developed/innovated a well-known APP for Elite class and also Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. And obviously, if someone is writing about a personality he/she will focus on his/her qualities and positive traits. There are hundreds of stubs and pages that do not have a single reference, if they could stay why not this one? Or if you don't know anything about those pages maybe I can launch AFD on all of them so you can also explain them to me because I want to know why. and also see that he is a brand ambassador of a famous brand in the UK and well-known in the world, that also full fills another requirement Nuck2u (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He "innovated a well-known app", did he? Using peacock words in this discussion severely undermines your point. If you know of any other articles which are as blatantly promotional as this one, sources or not, please nominate them for deletion as appropriate. Wikipedia has a spam problem, but adding more of it isn't helping. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to keep I think this person is emerging as a next billionaire, sooner or later being discussed in more high authority sites. I guess someone will create it again, so why not you guys could keep it. Just a thought Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't keep article on people who may become notable in the future: see WP:CRYSTAL. Please also keep in mind that AFD is not a vote: see WP:DISCUSSAFD. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming everything is verified, I don't see what makes him more than a run of the mill brand marketer. I can think of several more such people who are more notable, but don't have articles: Kory Aversa and Libby Post amongst the lot. While the subject of this page is mentioned or interviewed in some good sources, so are many other brand entrepreneurs with their 15 minutes of fame. I don't see significant coverage of him rather than the products he sells. "Sooner or later" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Nobody deserves an article on Wikipedia; we have high standards for notability, especially living persons. In fact, Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web host for other people to make money off of Wikipedians' hard work. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrine Maui[edit]

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

Unsung siren clearly not significant, fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's not a single WP:THIRDPARTY references available across the web that can give this article a significant boost. And yes, the subject's not remotely notable. Blue sphere 13:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. The XRCO award is quite a reach, perhaps if it was one of the main/top ones, but this subject does not seem to warrant keeping.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica May[edit]

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

The award is all there is to say - clearly this cannot be enough on its own. Fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. Montanabw^(talk) 06:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FICEB Ninfa Award win is not sufficent for WP:PORNBIO Finnegas (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Claire[edit]

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

Best spanish porn actress is clearly not enough when that is literally all there is to say. Fails pornbio anf gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO #1: Has won a well-known and significant industry award. She won a reward in 2004 and 2005 at Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival and has been nominated for one other. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No biographical content or nontrivial reliable sourcing. Exactly why a Czech performer is given a trophy as "Best Spanish Actress" is hardly explained, but it does indicate that these aren't really significant awards. Events like this one are very likely to limit their awards to performers who appear and promote the event. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the award is not significant & GNG is not met. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ritu (2009 film). MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Menon[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Most probably a vanity page created by a now blocked user who was probably a paid editor for Malayali expats in Bahrain (per the plethora of warnings on his talk page). Has supposedly performed some minor role in Ritu, though the IMDB page lists a Jay Menon. Has also supposedly won some non notable awards. The Kalabhavan Mani awards she claims to have won is probably a non notable award. (An organisation recently initiated a small scale Kalabhavan Mani memorial award, though she has not won that as well). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, if it ever was applicable. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ritu, her only film. Though not among the 3 main characters she played a supporting role. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, so shouldn't have a standalone article but a redirect won't hurt anyone. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: to Ritu. Non-notable actor. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Laffin[edit]

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

Seems to be most noted for his rugby playing. However, all the teams he's played for seem quite minor. There's a mention of him playing for Ireland under-21s but the ref. is dead and I cannot find other confirmation. There's a mention of semi-professional play for a French club, but the name isn't given and the ref. brings up a 404. I have not found noteworthy mentions of him in Google searches. A bit iffy (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Internet Archive does have a copy of the ourfc page used as a reference, it only lists him as being an Ireland U21 player in the player list and does not expand on that. I have not found anything else to back up that already meagre claim to notability on Rugby grounds. Statbunker shows someone of that name playing 5 matches for Henley Hawks on 2005 and the ourfc website ref shows at least 2 appearances for Oxford university. On their own neither of those is sufficient to show rugby union notability. Seems to be a minor bureaucrat working in Brussels with nothing showing wider notability and references are all minor from college sources. noq (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 deletion as sockpuppet. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Sanga[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. cited sources are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quick google search shows no reliable, third party sources in the first couple of pages - we can take that to mean that there are none, or very few. Keira 1996 08:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Keira. - TheMagnificentist 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are Google News articles available about her. Also added in citations. Dawn is Pakistan largest newspaper. Here is link to article about her. https://www.dawn.com/news/1307929 Found her album, songs and performance in the Google search Reustls. --J.Clark (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name checking only. --Saqib (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Burke (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz4477 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet criteria Leah (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creditinform[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable company. It has no references at all. FeralOink (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced article about an Experian subsidiary. It is mentioned in some routine announcements and listings and in providing media with numbers of bankruptcies in Norway, but I am not seeing substantial coverage of the company itself. (Note a similarly named Equifax / Capital One product.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (A redirect/mention on the Experian page could be an option, but would need distinction from the Capital One product and to be based on referenced text.) AllyD (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kutar[edit]

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

Reads like advert, nothing that justifies notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried a news search, see just some press releases. Seems not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No 3rd party or secondary sourcing, no sign of independent notability. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of NGC objects (6001–7000). MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6666[edit]

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

The object doesn't exist, in a constellation that doesn't exist, and there isn't any mention of the object having been thought to exist (the reference is a dynamic link). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fwiw I saw this new creation and was about to start a thread at WT:ASTRO to see if they thought it was necessary to have pages for these non-existent objects (there are a bunch of pages it seems, 111, 122, 123, 7028, etc). Depending on the outcome of this AfD, we could still do that and PROD the lot. "Pepper" @ 03:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same reasons as everyone else. Honestly, I'd agree with Pepper that we should also delete all articles about non-existent NGC objects. Loooke (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no specific notability guideline for non-existent objects – they are not notable unless they pass WP:GNG. Despite being listed in the NGC, WP:NASTRO is not applicable because NGC 6666 does not physically exist, and therefore cannot be described within the meaning of "significant physical entities, associations or structures that current science has confirmed to exist in outer space." Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something that doesn't exist and has no references that suggest notability. Unfortunately I can't find a case for speedy deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can: {{db-g1}} or {{db-nonsense}}, but the creator of the article would dispute. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existence is different from nonsense. It's not a hoax either since it makes no claims to existence. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying the article is nonsense, not that NGC 6666 is nonsense. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page definitely does not qualify for a nonsense delete. If you think it is nonsense, it may not be as clear as it should be. I.E. the thing was discovered and listed. But then later found that it did not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic probably is notable as there are publications about its non-existance. But unless a writer here can do more than write a substub, we can do without this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The object does not exist, it is in a constellation that does not exist, and evidence of notability does not exist, so it is only fitting that the Wikipedaia article not exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of NGC objects (6001–7000). That's the sensible place to note that this NGC number is assigned to a false sighting. --Lockley (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this was a false sighting, in which case it was thought to exist, then, first, should the list note that it was a false sighting, and, second, was it thought to be in Lyra (an actual constellation), and is there a typo in the name of the constellation? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me correct myself. In regard to the New General Catalog, "non-existent" does not mean "does not exist." A research paper written in 1993, which is abstracted here and discussed here, counts 229 entries classified as "non-existent". That's roughly 3% of the total 7840 NGC entries. The paper found that five were duplicates, 99 existed "in some form", 124 needed further research, and only one -- NGC 1498 -- for sure did not exist. So "non-existent" here is a historical categorization which doesn't correspond AT ALL with actual discoveries. As to how to reflect all this, I'd stand by a Merge and Redirect on the grounds that NGC 6666 is not individually notable, and in any case it would be useful to have an explanation of "NGC non-existence" on the NGC article. I'll do that part. --Lockley (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that the constellation has been corrected. So the object is questionable in a real constellation. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are now two more of these kinds of articles by the same writer: NGC 421 and NGC 412 but with slightly more referencing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BROS International Co., Limited[edit]

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

Not sourced. Alexf505 (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox Game Pass games[edit]

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

As this is a service like Netflix or Hulu, games will come and go. As such, this is basically serving as a catalog for the service, which we are not. MASEM (t) 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this doesn't call under WP:NOTCATALOGUE as it's similar to other "list of " articles for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, and catalogues tend to delete historic entries and products, Wikipedia does, and should not, as long as it could be well sources it would meet notability. Therefore I argue that it should not be deleted on the above argument. --Donald Trung (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We do keep track of games released for systems, and as noted on previous talk pages, you can't "unrelease" a game. But games on this service are not new releases, and they will come and go. If they offer unique titles you can't get anywhere, like Netflix's original series, then you now have something comparable to the existing MS, Sony, and Nintendo lists, which we would track. But not existing games. That's why this is a catalog since it tells you want they offer as a service, the other lists tracking what has been released over all time. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But straight out deletion wouldn't be the best option, merge this into another Xbox game list article or Microsoft-related product page would be better. And it does cover multiple systems and there seem to be plenty reporting on it to make it notable. Donald Trung (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The service itself is notable; the games connected to it are not. As Masem stated, the exception would be if and only if Microsoft publishes Game Pass-exclusive content. --McDoob AU93 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Check Microsoft's website if you want up-to-date listing on their programs and deals. That's not an encyclopedias role. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And it should be noted that if there was an external link that had this type of list (either MS directly or even a well-kept Wikia), then an EL at the bottom of the page for the Xbox Game Pass program would be very much in line. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information is going to become as persistent as monthly 'what's coming/going on Netflix' articles in the videogame press. We're WP:NOT here to host what is basically an unpaid Microsoft WP:ADVERT; if a game is on the service, just drop it in the game's article. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --McDoob AU93 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Davidson[edit]

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

This article does not follow WP:BIO because there are no sources other than this single manchester united listing of former players, which shows that he played for two years in the 1890s. There are no other sources on google etc. showing this person was significant in any way. -William (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because biographies need to be sourced. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is sourced. Source shows 40+ appearances for Manchester United. A quick check of one of his match dates in the newspapers of the time show him in the planned line-up (this is the September 9, 1893) edition of the Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser on page 11 under Football - Fixtures For To-Day. The simplest of Google searches with just his team name and surname yields 124,000 hits, with some legitimate ones right on the first page such as one, two, and three as examples. And even if one was unaware that arguably the most famous football team in the world didn't used to have a different name, a click on "what links here" would have made that clear. Clicking on the Russian version of this article, which is very well referenced (ru:Дэвидсон, Уилл) would have found a good list of references which are primarily in English! This is a massive fail of WP:BEFORE, and I don't understand User:Williambellwisdo claim that it is not sourced, nor do I understand User:LBHS Cheerleader clearly not doing the most basic research before agreeing. Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first articles for deletion I had created - in general, as I understand it at least, doesn't there have to be some amount of coverage not just incidentally of the person, but about the person themselves? All I can find for this guy is listings of their lineup when he happened to have played or at most very brief snippets - nothing that tells us about him other than that he existed. For example: here, here, here, here, and here. Overall there is nothing written about Will Davidson alone, but only about the team during that time in which he is sometimes mentioned. Sorry about the formatting - I don't know what went wrong. -William (talk)

There seems to be plenty of writing about him in 100-year old documents, some of which can be found in Google Books. Not much in the current papers ... - but it's for situations like this, that we have WP:BEFORE and subject-specific notability guidelines - specifically WP:NSPORTS where if you scroll down to WP:NFOOTBALL which notes that Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. . So 40+ matches with Manchester United (or whatever they called themselves back then) is so far past the bright line that as long as we can verify that they actually exist and did indeed do what was said, then there's no point pulling out 100-year old documents to prove notabilty. Nfitz (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL. He retired due to a serious injury. There's probably some published information about that, but it might not be online. This might require physical research of archives from the 1894-1895, possibly including a visit to Manchester. There may even be a related obituary, because medical care wasn't great back then. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, might be able to tease a death date out of genealogical data and find an obituary. How many William Davidson's could be born in Scotland and living there in the 1891 census ...gosh about 20 per year it would seem. Well, maybe not ... need another clue. Oh well, doesn't matter, still notable - though an obituary sure would help the article itself. Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson was still alive in 1903 because he recruited Alex Bell for Manchester United. I wonder if he had some sort of formal relationship with the club at that time. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. I've been fishing in the 1891 through 1911 censuses, without much luck. There is one I fancied in Rochdale in 1901/1911, particularly after I realised his house backed onto a football pitch; but if he was in Ayr in 1903, that now seems unlikely. Presumably he was back in Ayr by 1903. Though that clue might help - wish the 1901/1911 Scottish censuses were more accessible without $. (I figure that if we can identify him genealogically, we can establish a date of death, find his obituary, and flesh out his article). Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And with that tidbit, I've got a possible 1901 census entry in Scotland, age 32, married, and working as a coal-miner in Ayr. The one thing that jumped out at me though was he was born in Annbank - where Davidson previously played football. No trace in 1911 though. A couple of death possibilities, but no media coverage I could see. Searching the media more generally, the only thing that pops in a January 13 1903 mention of the Alec Bell signing in the Athetic News (Page 8), referring to Will Davidson as "the Heathens’ old captain, and fair player ever donned a jersey, regards Alec. Beil, whom the United have just engaged. ae about good pivot can found Scotland." - well that seems notable. A proper $ research account to go through the British Newspaper Archive further would be of use - especially to download that particular page, because clearly the OCR in the search results is a bit lacking!. That's a good 2-hours+ digging. Maybe someone can take that someday and find something - 50 years from now or something. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY with ease, notability is not temporary. There is significant coverage, implying that the subject passes WP:GNG and just because the subject and sources are a 100+ years old doesn't count either as notability is not temporary. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cruz[edit]

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

Couldn't find anything on Google or in the article that would suggest Bob Cruz is notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is a strong enough claim of notability that he would get an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about him — but of the three "references" here, two are on an unreliable fansite for the radio station he worked at and the third is the personal website of a former colleague, which means none of them constitute reliable sources for the purposes of establishing wikinotability. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with better access than I've got to US media coverage of the 1970s and 1980s can locate stronger evidence that he would actually pass GNG for something, but nothing here entitles him to an exemption from having to be shown to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain. Fair enough, here are some notable facts from reliable sources. Cruz was the last DJ hired at what was the number-one top-40's radio station in North America.^[2] He ultimately replaced Dan Ingram — "the greatest afternoon drive jock ever" — in the high revenue-generating timeslot of afternoon-drive.^[3]^[4] Later, he became the on-air announcer for ABC's 20/20 program.^[5]^[6] His resignation from WABC in 1981 marked the beginning of a string of departures at the station, triggered by a drop in ratings that precipitated the change to an all-talk format.^[7] Cruz was a casualty of AIDS in 1995, by which time 500,000 cases had been reported in the U.S. ^[8]^[9] Upon his death, ABC's 20/20 did a special tribute to him. algocu (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3341711/
^ Billboard Magazine, 1977
^ RADIO SURVEY ARCHIVE
^ The spirit of 77: It's been 50 years since Dan Ingram helped make WABC an AM radio icon
^ WABC Strives For Past Glories
^ 20/20 15TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL(1993)
^ WABC IS DROPPING MUSIC FORMAT TO SWITCH TO TALK AND NEWS
^ IMDB
^ AIDS Timeline

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, most of the existing sources don't even mention "Bob Cruz". - TheMagnificentist 11:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Current sourcing does not impress, but he received fairly consistently ongoing, if minor, coverage in broadcasting industry periodicals. There's quite a bit about the WABC format changes, in both Billboard and Television/Radio Age. I don't have access to most of this from where I am currently (especially the Television/Radio Age material). That said, the Billboard "Vox Jox" column (dedicated to DJ news) mentioned him fairly often: his hiring, timeslot and format changes, an acknowledgement that he was the most successful then-current DJ for the station (in the 1980-09-06 issue), his departure from radio to focus on 20/20 (1981-03-07), and a detailed (and very different from the previous week) report on his departure from the station (1981-03-14). I would not be immensely surprised for contemporary print sources to have offered more coverage of his tenure at 20/20 and his 1980 work announcing the Summer Olympics for ABC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the "notable facts" mentioned by Algocu are sufficient for notability, they mostly just prove he existed. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Dream-lives of Engineers (book)[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La Trobe University Squash Club[edit]

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

DePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non-professional or non major league sports club or team. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to La Trobe University#Athletics, or possibly its own subsection. Took gold and silver medals in notable collegiate competitions. But I can't see sufficient notability per WP:NSPORT for a separate article. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. of zero interest outside the squash club itself. wouldn't even rate as notable within the university. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Non notable club. Ajf773 (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG in its own right. Possibly merge to its campus article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intramural clubs are rarely notable. I would not object to a merge or redirect. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dae Jang Geum. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Min Mee-geum[edit]

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

Non-notable, minor character. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dae Jang Geum as an apparently NN character in a notable fictional media presentation, and per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jclemens. - TheMagnificentist 11:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge minor character. Someone could have done this boldly by now. MrBrug (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It had been merged, MrBrug, but the article kept getting re-created. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, maybe the redirect needs to be protected in that case. MrBrug (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dae Jang Geum. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birla Sun Life Asset Management Company Limited. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Balasubramanian[edit]

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

No indication of significance/notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. - TheMagnificentist 08:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our article on the company he is CEO of is currently pretty much written as an advertisement, and this article says nothing substantial beyond the fact he is CEO of the company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, with no evidence of independent notability in secondary WP:RS. What I do see is a lot of paid mini-profiles on Bloomberg and Linkedin etc, with a few short puff interviews about his work with the company with a paid-promo feel, on the business news sites that pump out a ton of this stuff, amounting to WP:Primary sources. And sure enough, this article is created by WP:SPA "Indian CEO and executives bio". His company might turn out to be notable, but WP:Notability is not inherited. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CEO of large investment firm. Chairman of a major industry association (Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI)). Interviewed regularly, with some in-depth coverage from a quick BEFORE going over google-news. The current article is poor (but not PROMO) - but the guy is quite notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Icewhiz --Bhadani (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 18:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per user:Icewhiz - Mar11 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Birla Sun Life Asset Management Company Limited: Fails WP:BIO, being a CEO of a company is not a claim for notability. The available soruces are more about the company and therefore not specifically about the subject here. It looks blatantly self promotional and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable executive. --Lockley (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T. E. Lawrence. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dahoum[edit]

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

I'm not exactly sure what this article is supposed to be about. OK, so he was a kid who worked with TE Lawrence some, but the article itself seems to be about (largely debunked) insinuations about his "relationship" with Lawrence which the latter's biographers do not find convincing (as noted in the rather messy section on his article about his sexuality).

This article is just thinly-veiled insinuation with some completely unremarkable biographical details thrown in. The vast majority of the sources I've been able to find online have erected him as some sort of LGBT icon, which doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion here for the reason I just noted.

I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I don't personally think it even warrants a merge into Lawrence's article. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - He was a real person, but it’s clear that he only is notable in his connection with T.E. Lawrence. While it has not been proved, it is fairly widely believed among Lawrence scholars that Dahoum is the “S.A.” to whom Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated, and the subject of Lawrence’s remark “I loved a particular Arab, and thought freedom for their nation would be an acceptable gift.” For me, that crosses the notability bar, but I can see that there is room for debate on the subject. I believe there was some news coverage of Dahoum’s pre-war visit to Britain, arranged by Lawrence and in company with another local resident of the Carchemish area; but I’ve never taken the trouble to dig it up. Tim Bray (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I don't think he is notable enough in his own right to have a page, but certainly notable enough to be merged with Lawrence.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) -- My immediate reaction to this was NOTINHERITED. I do not think the tag for facts being unverified is appropriate. The article sets out the issues clearly. Lawrence died in a motor cycle accident some 80 years ago and the subject nearly a century ago: as often with historical subjects, certainly is impossible. The subject's only potential notability comes from his connection with Lawrence, at a period of his life when Lawrence was a not particularly notable young archaeologist. The whole thing seems to be a COATHANGER for the innuendo that Lawrence was gay, an issue of which I know little. However I am disturbed at the number of historical figures whom the LGBT lobby has appropriated to its cause, often on the basis of very limited evidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NOTINHERITED; no opinion on a redirect to T. E. Lawrence. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to T. E. Lawrence, or else weak keep (but rename) if someone wants to put in a lot of legwork here. Dahoum was a real person, and he's discussed in quite a bit of real literature—respected biographies and scholarly publications—but, so far as I can determine, always in context to his relationship with Lawrence (whether that's his work relationship, as a photographer, and the potential that some of the photographs accredited to Lawrence were taken by Dahoum instead; or the theorized homosexual relationship, which modern sources are pretty divided on, but which the contemporary Arabs certainly believed was actually occurring). There's simply no coverage of him separate from the actions of Lawrence, and that's pretty much the keystone of NOTINHERITED. That said, I could be proven wrong here; if the article is to be retained, I'd strongly suggest we title it under the individual's real name, Selim Ahmed, with a redirect from his (widely used) sobriquet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navalpreet Rangi[edit]

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

This is basically WP:SOAP created by a WP:SPA with a WP:COI (that has been on a tirade to advertise this person by creating articles about companies that they may be involved in). IMHO the article does not pass WP:GNG and as a result, it should be deleted. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is little more than a c.v. of a documentary film maker. There is no significant coverage of the subject - only blogs, social media, and a India Times article about new films, not about him in depth. None of his films seems to have made it out of some film festivals. Sorry, but he fails WP:BLP, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. His work sounds interesting, assuming it's all true. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep the subject seems to meet WP:CREATIVE as the director of the notable film Pinda Vicho Pinda Sunida. If that film is not notable, then it shouldn't have an article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Don't think the film is notable either - its article was also created by the same user who clearly has a WP:COI Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources aren't good enough, likely non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 11:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few mentions of him ([15], [16], [17] and [18]). Plus he has also conducted a film festival. His film Pinda Vicho Pinda Sunida's Wikipedia page will most likely be deleted. The problem here is that none of the above sources cover him in significant detail and as such the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG standards. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kalantri[edit]

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

Despite the impressive list of references there's no evidence of notability. The references don't even allow us to confirm that Amit Kalantri, the author of the cricket biography, is the same person as Amit Kalantri the mentalist. Most are just words of wisdom attributed to a person of that name, but without any indication when or in what context Kalantri might have said them, or whether the person being quoted is either the mentalist or the cricket author. Huon (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person Amit Kalantri is an author. Removed the mentalist thing from the article. There are good references for his books which are third party published books with isbn number. There are many references which states the person is notable. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed the nonsense references from the article. [19] describes the author but is a primary source, I can't find anything else credible, or evidence the books aren't self-published. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR can't seem to find sources on the subject in question and both his books don't seem to be notable enough it could be WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyoshi Kamitani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of being a sportsman achieving any notable level. Sources are not independant 3rd-party references, but merely accounts of matches. Does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom that the subject does not satisfy the criteria of any of WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:SPORTSPERSON, based on available sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum[edit]

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

Basically a non-notable museum other than Greg Gianforte donated to it. Just a local place. Minimal significant coverage outside of the connection to the Gianforte campaign Montanabw^(talk) 01:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- significant as part of the Young Earth creationism. Here are sample sources:

Dinosaur museum presents biblical view of origins: A faith-based Creation -- this is a local source, but the coverage is quite in depth
Dinosaurs by the Decades: A Chronology of the Dinosaur in Science and Popular Culture, book mention

There has also been some local controversy around whether school trips should be allowed. I would say it's akin to the Creation Museum article and should be kept / expanded. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't have super strong feelings either way, but I guess my question is the point at which a local controversy reaches "significant coverage." That other museum has been widely covered in the national press. Not so sure about this one. It got a lot of press because of Greg Gianforte donating to it, but take out all the coverage linked to him and there's not much left, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well if I search 🔍 sites such as Bing News I get a load of different results from many years back unrelated to the one reference in the article, like here so I highly doubt that it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY only the article needs to be updated to reflect this. --Donald Trung (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally do keep small museums that have reliable sourcing; even museums with a controversial perspective. In this case, the Greg Gianforte-related discussiong, ongoing since at least 2015, enhance notability. But, as editors above have pointed out, non Gianforte-related sources also exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. I'm willing to withdraw the nom. Does anyone know if I can just do so or does a third-party uninvolved editor have to do it? Montanabw^(talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Here's how: WP:WDAFD. Nice improvements to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know Montana is not the most populous state, but the second largest dinosaur museum in it ought to be notable. A good deal of the present article appears to be a COATHANGER for an attack on young-earth creationism, but that is a matter of editing, rather than deleting. I would add that the theory is not one to which I subscribe. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator) per WP:GNG, and thanks to the editors who helped expand this stub. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm3341711/

[2] Billboard Magazine, 1977

[3] RADIO SURVEY ARCHIVE

[4] The spirit of 77: It's been 50 years since Dan Ingram helped make WABC an AM radio icon

[5] WABC Strives For Past Glories

[6] 20/20 15TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL(1993)

[7] WABC IS DROPPING MUSIC FORMAT TO SWITCH TO TALK AND NEWS

[8] IMDB

[9] AIDS Timeline

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]