Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 September	20 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other participants in favor of deletion. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VoID[edit]

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

Since 2008 no references, too technical, orphan. Original PROD was allegation of copyvio. Nothing else fixed. Must not be very important. Rhadow (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn -- Keep -- reasons for nomination resolved. Thanks. Rhadow (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Learning Company#Other games. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Quest 3D[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG - see You're forgiven if you've never heard of Logic Quest 3D. The most activity in the edit history of this non-notable game has been editor tagging and indecision of whether to keep it or delete it.^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - lack of sources makes it fail the WP:GNG. The few sources present are passing mentions or non-notable/non-reliable sources. Tried to boldly redirect it, but was reverted without any real rationale other than "send it to AFD". Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to The Learning Company#Other games. If the author is interested in this material, he should expand it there and later WP:SPLIT it out (actually, maybe it would be a good idea to have a list of The Learning Company video games, for any/a bit more detail than can/should be allowed for on the main TLC page?). --Izno (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Izno. The game does not meet WP:NVG in its own right, what little content the article has can be moved to the Learning Company page.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PohranicniStraze. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Jones Procter[edit]

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

NOT MEMORIAL. The founder of Mother's Day is notable, but not her assistant, who has no other basis for notability . An POV memorial, based upon local newspaper articles,which are not sufficiently discriminating sources, DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the founder of mother's day is notable I'm having a hard time finding her assistant to be notable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources with titles like "how mother's day got out of hand" and the like tell it all. This article is not about Procter, it is a screed against those of us who lack artistic skill and pay others so we can give aesthetically pleasing gifts to our mothers on mothers day, and other relatives other days. OK, I myself usually make cards myself, but that is besides the point. This is a POV-pushing coat rack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liya Dovgalyuk[edit]

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

no evidence of meeting WP MUSICIAn. WP is not a place for memorials. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. A sad story, but no sources to support that she was notable. The fact that her family and friends are active in organising events etc. to her memory does not make her notable. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and failing notability. Domdeparis (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirt Jacobs[edit]

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

Subject fails notability guidelines per WP:BIO or WP:GNG: I can find no significant, independent, coverage of this person (nor the talk show MoxieTalk). All sources in this article are either primary (Linked In, MoxieTalk.com), trivial listings in program guides, or otherwise affiliated with Jacobs. Several news articles in Insider Louisville ([1], [2], [3]) are in fact sponsored content produced by MoxieTalk. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete missing credible sources and fails WP:BIO guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Anand (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Notability tag was removed in Special:Diff/799759137. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Before commenting here I worked hard to find coverages about this person, the only coverage which I got is this [4] this coverage appears to be about a different Anand Kumar. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER at this time. gongshow talk 00:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Plano shooting[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper reddogsix (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mass shootings are an all too common event these days. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable given the large number of victims Rossbawse (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to Irma, it wasn't covered in the news channels. Likely only known locally. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, it has references that establish notability. Local notability is still notability. 2601:140:2:894C:1BC6:B9F:A1C6:C6B9 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also shootings are common these days.

2607:FEA8:A29F:FABD:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is one of the biggest mass shootings so far this year. The article just needs work. It is a notable event. bencub9119:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbuff91 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete - "One of the biggest mass shootings so far this year"; according to who? The same story is repeated in 109 papers for a few days but Wikipedia is not news. What would make an incident notable, according to WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE, is historical or long-term impact. That can only be determined weeks or months from now hence we have a rushed article on our hands. Until more significant coverage appears, this crime has no claim for inclusion in the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local news coverage alone will make it notable. 9 deaths is pretty significant, and news coverage of this will continue for some time. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continuing major coverage of this 9 fatality event. There is no snowball's chance this won't be notable - even without the obligatory WP:RAPID mention.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My feeling is that Hurricane Irma, and the fact the news was first released around midngiht, resulted in fewer initial news stories. But that is change. Also, there will countless be follow ups as the investigation continues. There will be news about the survivor. Backgrounds on the victims, and perpetrator. There will be discussion from the domestic violence angle. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can confirm that this received decent level of coverage here in the UK so not purelay a "local" event. Also judging it based on lack of news coverage because something else was going on is flawed anyway so any vote stating it isn't notable enough because of Irma should be discounted.145.8.180.203 (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An editor above who asserts that initial coverage was drowned out by the hurricane news was probably correct. But national Plano mass shooting: Details revealed about gunman Spencer Hight CBS News, [5] and international Texas gunman killed his estranged wife and seven friends, BBC: [6], coverage continues and regional coverage is intense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This mass shooting is operationally identical to politically motivated terrorist attacks in Israel and other nations. The only difference is that the target was the shooter's ex-wife and there was no stated political motive or pledge of allegience to a terrorist group. In my opinion, such attacks should have the same coverage as politically motivated attacks, and indeed we cannot be sure of any clandestine motives hidden by what appears to be domestic violence. Violence against a wife does not explain mass shooting everyone in a home, school or shopping center unless his primary motive was to create terror by mass killing using his ex-wife to mask his real motive. Editors need to be watchful of coordinated attempts to keep such events out of media such as wikipedia which are excellent resources for studying terrorist and terrorist-like attacks. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings should never be deleted because they are "routine" news like car accidents, and guidelines should be revised so people stop routinely swarming to delete anything that looks like a WP:OBVIOUS-TERRORIST-ATTACK. Many of the editors above have also been busy trying to delete or list-ify Islamist ISIS inspired terrorist attacks Bachcell (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mass killing = incident of historical significance and lasting impact. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this point it is no big deal. Shootings happen all the time, and this wasn't in a public place like a school or a theater.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Domestic violence with multiple victims, in one house. Not notable. This event happens multiple times a year. Nothing about this particular event makes it any more notable than various murder-suicides, single-household shootings or any other spate of violence in a large country. There was 4+ in the last 30 days alone. Political "possibilities"/"maybe" isn't enough to keep an article, neither is the guess that it might have been more notable of other news wasn't prevalent. Something that didn't happen isn't justification either. Seola (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity is established by coverage, which is still on going today, and not body counts. However responding to your points, this is not domestic violence (killing his ex wife, yes, going in and killing a house full of friends, no). And the body count is high, to a level rare in a non terror event as you may see here: List of rampage killers. A 9 fatality shooting, for any reason, is usually notable, as evidenced by continued coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 18 September 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)}}} 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Yeah, they shot a lot of people, and yeah, that's going to make the news. Will it attract that much attention several years later? Nobody knows yet. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the answer is that we should wait 3 years before making articles about mass shootings since we don't know if they'll be notable at first? That seems absurd. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This story appears to have national traction (here's coverage in New York); the Plano police chief also said "we've never had a shooting of this magnitude." Plano, TX has a population of over 260,000, so this being the worst shooting in its history is likely to have lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly straightforward application of WP:NOTNEWS. While murder is always tragic, it is not always notable for encyclopedia purposes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tragedy no doubt, but given the likelihood of this being a domestic dispute gone awry, I dont think I'd call this worthy of an article for the sake of it not being notable enough to want to research say, 2 years from now, not to mention this is within WP:NOTNEWS. Bryan C. W. (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would be inclined to say delete, but looking at the extent of the coverage, we must apply WP:GNG and WP:RAPID as part of WP:NEVENT here and keep the article until it can be determined whether the event will have sustained impact. I am a bit disappointed that people are arguing to delete and keep on the grounds of whether or not there were enough people killed to give the event notability. This is entirely missing the point of notability on Wikipedia. An article on a single murder can be notable if there is significant coverage in reliable sources secondary if it has lasting impact. At the same time someone could commit 1000 murders and there might not be the coverage and impact to support an article on the subject (although this is unlikely). The spread of the coverage outside of the local effected area satisfies the idea that this should not be considered routine coverage on par with typical violent crime. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 42 wouldn't it make sense to create an article when a sustained impact has already been established, not wait and hope for it? Anything can be covered for a few weeks by WP:ROUTINE reports and you kinda missed the bigger picture of WP:NEVENT -- like WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. A mass shooting is "good" news for the media to cover; WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS discusses why it doesn't mean the incident is notable based on a wave of coverage. The fundamental flaw with a WP:RAPID argument is I can apply the other half: "don't rush to create articles" and still be just as correct as you. On top of that, a lasting historical significance has not been established so it was WP:TOOSOON to create this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer is to wait 2-5 years after a mass shooting to see if it becomes notable? That's absurd. This shooting has a high body count, world-wide coverage, sustained interest, and will likely continue. People dismiss this shooting as just a domestic dispute, seem to not realize that it's extremely unusual for a domestic murder to result in 9 deaths via shooting. It's probably the most notable spousal murder with the highest body count. It's also the most notable crime in Plano Texas ever. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your words, not anyone else's; nobody said it had to wait years, but the article was started the same day, and at this point we haven't even waited a month. You are giving reasons why people ought to care over the long run, but nobody is obligated to do so, when all is said and done; and at this point very little has been said or done. We can actually wait to find out whether there is real long-term notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can play this whole skeptics game with any mass shooting, or even any event. So what is the answer? Wait one month? A year? I'd like some specifics. No one has a crystal ball, after all. This shooting follows the same pattern of any other major event in terms of news coverage. There's also no strict definition of "lasting" or "Recent" or anything else, the rules are fairly vague. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Gurski[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Previously speedily deleted. Edwardx (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The article has been previously removed as advertisement. The admins who have access to the deleted versions can easily see a major difference between the deleted and current versions. The two versions have nothing in common but the subject. I assume that if the subject of the article has been covered by WP:IRS enough for it to be written in its current form without any problems with regard to WP:ROC and WP:NPV, then WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO and WP:GNG have been adhered to. If colleague Edwardx has a different view, he should be more specific. According to the sources listed in the article, Yuri Gursky is a major newsmaker and a figure of authority both in the national (Belarus) IT sector and internationally (VP of MailRu Group, Russia). Ordinary businessmen cannot boast four successful start-up exits or their products being purchased by Playtech, Facebook and Google for hundreds of millions of dollars. They are not featured in media articles in the countries where they don’t live and work. ([7]) Addon: WP:DIRECTOR "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Krukau (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 11 September 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)}}} 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable businessman and author. There are many Russian language sources about him, in addition English language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Women's football in Iran. Sandstein 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football revolution[edit]

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

I think the article is both WP:OR and WP:CFORK and as far as I have searched, the term 'football revolution' does not refer to Iran/is not widely used. The content however, can be merged with Football in Iran and Women's rights in Iran. Pahlevun (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are a lot of references about the event and subsequent interpretations. I've added references to the article. There are a few references I don't have access to. These include WSJ 2015 and the Jadavpur Journal of International Relations. The article could use more clean-up so that the concept is clearer, but I'm not going to have time to do it right now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one of the two articles discussed below. I'd be happy to do the work if that's the outcome here. I think there's plenty of "something" there, but it's not mainstream, as Pahlevun points out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Surely there are tons of sources discussing women and football in Iran and as someone who is following the news closely on the subject, I can even tell you about the recent events. But the question is, are any of these discussing references the concept "football revolution" or not. This term is not used in Iran, I can tell you that. And what I see here is a coatrack article that instead of discussing about "football revolution", its definition, history, framework etc. is a set of facts about women and football in Iran. My problem is that there are no sources supporting the lead, which says:

The football revolution (or soccer revolution) refers to the events in Iran which began 1997 in the context of football in that country. The idea of a "football revolution" is that the game itself can be used as a part of the secularization of Iran and frame women's rights movements in the country.

–Pahlevun (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: I'd support incorporating the information into Women's rights in Iran or Football in Iran. I did find one article that said it was a term used in Iran and there is a (I think) Iranian writer, Nafisi, but on reconsideration it does seem like it's more of a Western framing of the issue. I respect your opinion for having actual on the ground information. I appreciate you responding to me and I'm going to change my !vote to a merge. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you. Pahlevun (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the information in the article is certainty well covered and definitely notable and passes WP:GNG. The real issue though is not so much the content but rather the title, which appears to be a violation WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Similar to what the nominator said I can find no indication of the title "Football revolution" being regularly and reliably used in most of the sources. Perhaps a title change or a merge to an article such as Football in Iran and/or Women's rights in Iran would be more appropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Football in Iran and/or Women's rights in Iran, perhaps even its own article (Women's sport in Iran?). Definitely gets lots of coverage as a subject but not seeing widespread / any use of the term "football revolution" in this context, so no redirect. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename and expand Just for kicks I searched: futbol revolucion, and turned up articles on sundry proposed or anticipated innovations in the sport. You get the same range of material if you search Football revolution term in English. This phrase seems less of a a WP:NEO than a sort of headline-speak. Certainly it describes a real and significant social/political phenomenon. After looking at both proposed targets, I think Women's rights in Iran#Sports would be the most appropriate merge target. However, I think it would be a better idea to KEEP this, rename it to something like Women and Sports in Iran, and expand it with some of the material now located at Women's rights in Iran#Sports. Because 1.) Women's Rights in Iran is getting sort of unwieldy. 2.) This topic is about women's role in Iranian society, not confined to political rights, and 3.) Sources in the article strongly support the idea that women's growing freedom to participate in sports in public is an important social and political phenomenon in Iran.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep per megalibrarygirl. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I also like FD's idea of renaming the article and expanding the scope. Giant Snowman 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from the citations in the article. The title of the article is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Perhaps to Iranian revolution in women's football or merge to Women's football in Iran (which exists). There is no need to look for a wider merge target either in women's rights or women's sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 17 September 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)}}} 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom rationale and subsequent discussion, but Women's football in Iran would be a better target than rather than the nominator's suggested targets Football in Iran, with maybe a brief overview in Women's rights in Iran#Sports ClubOranje^T 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Women's football in Iran per the above reasoning. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge to Women's football in Iran.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Football in Iran. This isn't about Women's Football in Iran, which would be women playing the sport. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Nations Youth League[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:CLUB JMHamo (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well sourced from multiple sources that cover the group. I hsve posted in Wikiproject Nigeria asking for help in places the article in a suitable category. Please be aware that Wikipedia is for everyone not just western or pop culture audiences and an article on a secessionist group in Nigeria that has attracted attention of national media is invaluable information for students and researchers on Nigerian politics. Egaoblai (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article looks a bit too promotional as it is not a major secessionist group yet. Reference bombing also detected. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very Very Weak delete: I hardly agree with Oluwa2Chainz at AFDs, but in this case we seem to be thinking alike. I perfectly understand his !vote but I just want to add more perspective to it. One thing is for certain, any group that comes out today to state its objective as the emancipation of Biafra or Southern Cameroon, several news sources will publish the news but per WP:NOTNEWS that info doesn't belong here since it will be WP:unencyclopaedic. I did some digging into this organization and its still fairly new, and there are very many similar collations across many segments of the country, perhaps a wp:nlist article can be created to document them, as they seem to get coverage, although per WP:EVENTCRIT it's not enough for a standalone article. From what I see online, these group are yet to make any serious impact in the struggle for Bafra nation, and per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't be hoping that a secessionist group gets more powerful in a sovereign nation. Let me end by saying that that there are sources quite a number, but are mostly announcements, coalitions and intentions. So I'll understand if someone votes to keep the article. I would have included linkes to the sources here but I only have access to WP for now. Darreg (talk) 14:43, 14 September 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)}}} 19:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete In accordance with what Oluwa2Chainz said of which I believe is a Nigerian editor so it's his prerogative to know more. A strong delete is best applicable, as I also have re-searched on this & even to my amazement not only is the culb non-notable, as of now there is no county or anything recognized as "Biafra" in the world. so how do they even have a club when the country or organization it self is non-existent and not officially recognized itself is but a myth??? This is so hilarious, it's like saying USSR have a club. it simply doesn't even exist. This is why personal research is very salient & not just judge from what other editors have contributed, those voting "keep" clearly aren't serious or are just trolling. I go with 2chinnz on this one please delete this. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Geier[edit]

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

This article subject has references which include sales websites for merchandise, announcements for a club show where tickets are sold, and several other 50-60-70 word brief mentions on websites, many of which are unreliable. Not enough significant coverage is to be found here. Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article content deficiencies are not remedied by article deletion. Geier has a large internet presence, has a huge social media following and is covered by many reliable sources. I'm a little surprised that you've made this nomination without a single word of discussion at the article Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:BEFORE search shows subject is clearly notable. A news search shows 160 articles, one for his alter-ago "Puddles the clown" brings back 300 results. Many of those "brief" mentions are just short articles, it's not as though the subject is only briefly mentioned, thus is passes WP:SUSTAINED and WP:TRIVIAL. In fact, all the references on the page are actually pretty good, can't see why this article would be deleted. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was only a procedural comment about this AFD. It certain does belong here.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An editor said here that I did not perfom WP:BEFORE. [8], [9]. He is incorrect. I always do a before first, before undertaking a decision to place an article at AFD. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised I edited that comment hours before you made yours. I do not think you neglected to do a BEFORE, it was a poor choice of words that I immediately disagreed with, hence my quick edit. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that Section D, #3 of WP:BEFORE clearly explains why this AfD is erroneous. It states that if sources are found, it's a clear indication that the subject meets GNG and the article should not be nominated for deletion. Section #2 shows that if no sources are found, an AfD is ok, but that's not the case. As discussed above (and is clear to anyone reading this AfD by clicking on the "news" links above) this subject has hundreds of sources. So, the next step according to policy is that, "the article is not a proper basis for a nomination....Instead, you should consider citing the sources." SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator I !vote to delete the article because it fails WP:GNG. As I stated in the opening, many of the references are just passing mentions. They are brief and do not contain significant coverage in WP reliable sources.WP:RS. At least three of the passing and brief mention sources contain only 50, 60, or 70 words. The 1st reference in the article is a list type book that contains 100 places to go in the ATL area. Each one of the 100 are around 30- 50 words. So the article subject is just 1% of the 100 places. So his reference is only a brief passing mention of 30-50 words in a whole book that is 1 of 99 others. So the article fails WP:GNG When one carefully examines the references quite carefully, one will also find that some of the references point to unreliable websites. See: WP:RS again if you must. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of WP:GNG uses this good example: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The majority of the articles listed meet this requirement. Most of the articles are 100% about Mike Geier and do not focus on anything else. The book in question is named "100 things to do in Atlanta", the sheer fact that this one individual made that list is actually an argument for notability and not against. A trivial mention is also explained in that GNG article as, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." So in this case, using that sentence is a good reference for Bill Clinton's Wikipedia page, but it is not enough to establish GNG for the band "Three Blind Mice". Understanding this, it's very apparent that the rest of the sources on the page Mike Geier are not trivial mentions. I will not disagree that many of them are short mentions, but there are no Wikipedia rules that disallow short articles. If 100% of the short article is about the individual, it's not a trivial mention, it's an absolute mention. These short sources are almost always 100% about the individual. As such, those sources stand strong. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an article, I would need to tag you with: WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semmendinger, please kindly post your comments in chronological order. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are in an order appropriate for the conversation they pertain to. Instead of talking here about unrelated things please direct all these types of comments to my talk page (found in my signature). SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was only a procedural comment about this AFD. It certain does belong here. Someone will likely come along and correct the order the fix the mis-ordering of the AFD. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And you've been editing Wikipedia only since June, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content not the volunteer contributors. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A shame I can't tell you how impressed I am. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SNOW This AfD is a joke, I checked about the first dozen of articles that come up in the NEWS search and most of them are articles completely about the subject, so he clearly passes notability. Robman94 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too am seeing more than enough significant Gnews coverage across the US -- well beyond his home base of Atlanta. We seem to have ourselves a clown who passes GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original nomination is partially right in the fact that their are plenty of trivial sources referenced, but fails to address the abundant non-trivial coverage this subject has received which can be scarred up with deeper Google searches. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On wmflabs [10] it is noted, that Mike Geier (Puddles Pity Party) has up to now 674052 views on en.wikipedia.org. He has meanwhile since months more than 1000 views a day. --Boehm (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Lucypaperclip must have coulrophobia (the fear of clowns). I see no other reason to even consider this article for deletion... Yes, one cite is an ad for his appearance In LA, and there are two Postmodern Jukebox videos, and PMJ does, in fact, sell its videos and other products online. All other cites seem to be from widely acknowledged reliable sources... GWFrog (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure PMJ's commercial basis invalidates its use in support of article claims. But these really are questions to be addressed at the article Talk, something which the OP has so far neglected to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

There seems to be little disagreement she has been the subject of a lot of coverage, not solely by "tabloids". The only major question is whether WP:BLP mandates deletion, especially WP:BLP1E. On the question of BLP in general, especially since she is a minor, there seems to be consensus that the subject is worthy of inclusion and that BLP concerns can be - and mostly have been - fixed by editing and adding better sources.

As for BLP1E, the key is the "E", i.e. "event". The policy does not further elaborate what a "single event" is but defining her being radicalized, joining ISIS and being captured as a single event stretches the word "event" too far. This coincides with the times coverage happened. As Icewhiz pointed out, the first burst of coverage was in 2016. Then there was coverage beginning in July of this year, indicating that reliable sources see these occurences as separate events and per WP:V, this is what should guide the classification. So BLP1E was not a valid reason for deletion. On a side note, BLP1E also requires the person in question to otherwise "likely to remain a low-profile individual" which, as has been pointed out by Icewhiz, is not the case here since - WP:CRYSTAL nonewithstanding - we can actually predict that whatever decision will be made, it will be reported (again, WP:BLP1E requires us to speculate about future events in this case).

As for other deletion arguments, neither WP:SOLDIER nor WP:CRIMINAL need to be met if WP:BASIC or WP:GNG are which is consensus here.

So Why 10:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Wenzel[edit]

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

Unclear what notability there is for her as an individual. All sources are topically trivial and based on a single occurrence. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:BLP1E is relevant here, she is notable only in passing (at least at present) and everything relevant about her is already included at Islam in Germany#W. This article was originally boldly redirected to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Sexual violence and slavery by El cid, el campeador, but I unredirected it as she is not mentioned at all there. I intended to nominate it for AfD after doing the BLP tagging, etc, but was beaten to it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON & WP:BLP1E, plus general BLP concerns with the subject being a minor. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage started in 2016 - when she traveled to the Islamic State via Turkey. She has since apparently also participated in the conflict, and is now facing serious charges which may lead to the death penalty - which would be notably be applied to a post-WW2 German. This has become a diplomatic issue between Iraq and Germany - and is not going away. This is beyond BPL1E - as she is notable both for her online recruitment and conversion to Isalm which lead to travel to the Islamic state, her subsequent activities as an Islamic state adherent, and now the criminal case and diplomacy surrounding her. A redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Sexual violence and slavery would be grossly out of line - and would conflate a willing adherent facing serious charges with actual victims in Iraq (e.g. Yazidi women whose families' were butchered, while they were "spared" as prizes to be passed between IS fighters as chattel)Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC) In terms of policy, she clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME, particularly (2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event.. Coverage of this individual is enough for notability as is, and is expected to continue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was interested to know about her family and know if she had a conflict in her teenage life . Wikipedia was the best source gathering all info in one place .The article is useful !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alborz Fallah you have been a user for 10 years and I am sure you are familiar with WP:ATA, more specifically WP:ITSUSEFUL. Could you provide a reason to ignore the BLP concerns and the tabloid media coverage? Remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to her capture, serious criminal charges, and becoming a diplomatic chip it was tabloidy coverage (of the ISIS runaway bride). Since her capture, this is being covered in ALL the international news sources and she is being named in all of them. There is no doubt coverage will remain at this level, and she already passes GNG regardless. Her conviction in the Iraqi court is a certainity, the only question is snetencing.Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz I'm sorry but I'm not interested in your WP:CRYSTALBALLy assertions: "There is no doubt...", according to who? You? Incidents and events are regularly covered in 109 newspapers for some time. Without historical or lasting significance, it's just a (tragic) news story.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in reliable sources demonstrate she easily meets WP:GNG. Also meets WP:CRIMINAL. Seems to also be a case of WP:GEOBIAS as Americans who became involved in Islamist extremism such as Douglas McCain, Moner Mohammad Abu Salha and Troy Kastigar have had long-standing articles. AusLondonder (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would be disruptive for me to nominate those pages for deletion now, but I don't see how any of those individuals are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be the type of situation that WP:BLP1E was written for. Teens becomes radicalized and join the jihad every day, but it only breaks the surface of the media cycle when a white and/or Western teen does it. This is an otherwise unknown person, a minor, and is only in the news for one topic. ValarianB (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the page, and accepted it's delation up front originally. Though after taking another look at it, it is important to note that she has been consistently covered in credible newspapers, and there is a large amount of information available on her life through articles. It is also important in geopolitical context between German-Iraqi relations.ShimonChai (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's a 16 year old. She's only "notable" as the result of tabloid-style coverage. She doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER or anything like that. As far as WP:CRIMINAL, I don't think anything here is historically unusual. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Per my points above. Tabloid media coverage and reports WP:ROUTINEly keeping up with the girl is not an indication of notability: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Some editors may choose to not enforce the NOTNEWS policy this subject falls under; I get it, it's fun to play "journalist" for a little. However, we cannot tolerate the WP:BLP issues or the failure to meet WP:NCRIME.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Tremendous BLP violations but, hey, it does not seem to bother those who want to keep the article. After reading this, I believe there is at least more significance here than the countless articles on minor terrorist attacks that receive a wave of news for a week.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are generally in agreement. If Ms. Menzel had been the one stabbing the Israeli grocer in the 2017 Yavneh attack, and the German government was trying to get her back, I'd have voted keep there also. The international scope makes this more significant. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is there a wikisavvy editor who can inform this discussion of the statistics for readers looking at this page? if this page is deleted it looks like a candidate for a redirect to a page that lists/discusses isis recruits from europe. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the period from creation on 18 August to 17 September (the day before it was nominated here) it was viewed 404 times. So yes, a redirect would certainly be appropriate if she is mentioned anywhere suitable. For most of existence it has been a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Sexual violence and slavery but she is not mentioned there (which is why I unredirected it) and Icewizz above notes that this target is inappropriate for other reasons too. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as her conviction is most likely and this will continue to generate more coverage. I disagree that she is notable for single event. She is notable convert who joined Islamic State and therefore should be kept. This was covered a year ago in different reliable sources including in German media like RTL and others here. Greenbörg (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Multiple users are commenting on tabloid coverage - however besides the face they contribute to notability - this is no longer the case - the article, which is well sourced, is not sourced from tabloids (~~there is still one in there - when I get back from vacation - I intend to replace/remove it - it isn't needed for anything~~). Since being captured and becoming a diplomatic bargaining chip - at the head of state level (or at least Iraqi head of state) - this is covered by the premier newspapers. Prior to July this year - creation was indeed unwarranted as she was both BPL1E (known for her conversion to IS) and with loads of tabloid coverage (and a little non-tabloid). Since July - the situation has changed markedly. Yes, there are multiple daily mail pieces out there on her (also post July).... But these is also coverage, multiple pieces in different dates in multiple different newspapers covering at least 4 distinct developments of this case. Note she is no longer "just" a runaway bride, but is known to have been part of IS's apparatus (morality brigade) and is now also charged with terrorism/murder (for admitting to being a sniper and killing Iraqi soldiers) - and faces the death penalty - though based on the high talk, I would assume this would averted (to a jail sentence). Executed / Jailed / Released - all would generate more major coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Not back from vacation, but did strike out questionable sources that were reffed - they weren't actually supporting the article (as each bit they supported was reffed from a much better source). Added some Wapo/NYT. Just because tabloids covered something - does not mean that non-tabloid coverage is not there - in this case - it is strongly there from July onward (a bit in 2016 too - but that wouldn't have gotten her over the notability cliff).Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the more notable connections of ISIS to Germany. Certainly seems more important than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hanover stabbing, which was almost unanimously kept. —Kusma (t·c) 08:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUTX, the article should be looked at alone, not compared to others. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am mentioning that other AFD because it came to the wrong conclusion and I couldn't resist bringing it up again. On the general point: while we don't compare articles at AFD, we do use previous AFD outcomes to eventually write notability guidelines, which in turn are used to argue at AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As User:Icewhiz says, WP:SIGCOV in a wide range of WP:RS media is now more than sufficient to establish notbility.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the variety of international coverage, and the unique aspect of this being a young German, formerly Christian woman who has reportedly killed people as a sniper, after being radicalized, and is now the subject of diplomatic interest. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep GNG> What are we gonna do? wait 5 years for her to be shot before she gets an article? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wallows[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage. This is a band just formed this year by two guys who are known as actors rather than as musicians, but whose WP:BLPs are not properly sourcing that they even pass WP:NACTOR for their acting (they're depending far too strongly on blogs and facebooks, and not nearly enough on reliable sources) -- so we cannot hand the band an NMUSIC #6 pass just because they have two members with standalone BLPs. The only other notability claim here is "got X number of streams on Spotify for a song", which satisfies no Wikipedia inclusion whatsoever. And for sourcing, all we have here is one blurb on one clickbait "new media" website that is not an acceptable reliable source -- and even if it were, it still takes more than just one source to pass GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they ever do actually have an NMUSIC pass, but nothing here is an NMUSIC pass today. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nom's excellent summation works for me. Wikipedia is not for wannabe garage bands, even if they're formed by bit-part alleged actors. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Sourcing seems a bit thin to warrant a standalone article at this time. I would be fine with redirecting this to Dylan Minnette since existing coverage refers to this act as "Dylan Minnette's band" and it's mentioned within his article. gongshow talk 22:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netstep[edit]

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

Non-notable software program, fails WP:GNG, could not find sources for most of the sources are about other non-notable companies with similar names. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- published in 2010, not notable (by reference) then. The product was discontinued the same year. No lasting power, not notable. Rhadow (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a subsequently abandoned Firefox fork. I am seeing nothing to indicate that it attained encyclopaedic notability, by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goji (financial services)[edit]

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

Non-notable financial institution where the PROD was removed by the creator under the reasoning that since they had removed the category of peer-to-peer lending institution, the PROD rationale was no longer valid. This is a non-notable firm that has no coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Little more than a promotional directory listing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- sources don't go in depth enough. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main thing here is WP:CORPDEPTH, of which there is none. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lewis (wrestler)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Sources in article are primary, trivial mentions, or databases. Also appears to be an amateur bodybuilder so doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Nikki♥311 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this page should be deleted because sources that are used are legitimate such as nwasupreme.com, a website ran by a promotion where Josh Lewis wrestles. Josh Lewis is not involved in any way with this website and can not influence it's content. Furthermore, Lewis has competed in the Arnold Classic. This competition is ran by the International Federation of Bodybuilders. According to the IFBB's rules, "You cannot compete in the IFBB until you are an “IFBB Pro” from winning a NPC national show." Since Josh has won multiple NPC national shows and competed in three Arnold Classics, this would consider him a bodybuilding pro and not just an amateur. User:Jasonecohen6

Actually, I don't even see bodybuilding listed at WP:ATHLETE, so we'll just have to use WP:GNG to determine notability. NWA Supreme is a company that Lewis wrestles for and is therefore considered a primary source. It does not establish notability. Nikki♥311 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with Nikki and request that this page stay up It does meet all requirements for professional wrestling. I disagree with Nikki about the references nwa website does meet requirements. All so pro wrestling illustrated is a very strong reference. As well as many other references that are list on page. I have no affiliation with anyone. I'm not an expert on bodybuilding but the facts and references for pro wrestling are very strong and I believe this page should stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse952015 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jesse952015 has made no other edits to Wikipedia outside of this nomination. The Pro Wrestling Illustrated link (I think you mean this one [11]) doesn't even mention him. Even if it did, it would be a trivial mention at best. Nikki♥311 22:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An updated reference has been added for the Pro Wrestling Illustrated issue that states that Josh Lewis is ranked #9 in the NWA. These rankings are compiled by the world's number one print wrestling magazine, lending credibility to Josh Lewis being considered notable User:Jasonecohen6 —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this page stay up, looks to have very good references. I have no affiliates with NWA or Josh Lewis. I have done a few title change updates on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWATilteUpdates (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has been brought to my attention via my talk page that User:Jasonecohen6 is the webmaster at nwasupreme.com, thus presenting a COI. Nikki♥311 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice the article is sourced heavily on with Wrestling-Titles.com and Cagematch. Not saying they aren't reliable sources. Just more reliable third party sources are needed. Is Indy Power Rankings notable with the project guidelines? I know a lot of wrestling see value in them. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Titles and Cagematch are considered reliable, but they do not establish notability because they are databases with no criteria for inclusion. As for Indy Power Rankings, I don't know much about them, but from reading the website, it seems more like a bunch of wrestling fans rather than experts in the field. Regardless, it is just a trivial mention of a non-notable title which doesn't establish notability either. Nikki♥311 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as this is personal not professional Nikki has a history of taking down. NWA pages. She has removed lots of them, not only NWA wrestlers but NWA title histories and NWA promotions. Pro wrestling illustrated source does check out. She said Josh Lewis is not on reference. Referance does check out Josh Lewis in ranking for NWA supreme and in the NWA overall ranking. I wounder what is her motivation? It seem personal Not professional Why not fix some of these pages she removes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWATilteUpdates (talk • contribs)

It is not personal, and I have nothing against the NWA. I have a history of nominating pages for deletion that don't meet Wikipedia criteria, and the vast majority of them were deleted as the community agreed with me. Unfortunately, a lot of NWA wrestlers do not meet criteria. Also, if you read above, the PWI source did not work and was switched out, which is why it now mentions Lewis. However, it is still a trivial mention and does not establish notability per WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I shouldn't have to defend myself against your anti-NWA allegations, I will. I also have a history of improving NWA articles. For example, I was behind NWA World Women's Championship becoming a Featured List (see here). Nikki♥311 09:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically per nom, unless author wants it Userfied. I did several Gnews searchs with different keywords and came up empty. Also sources are mostly NWA listings or to things like his website. L3X1 (distænt write) @ 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources to establish notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG per nom. Also, the discussion should be on the subject of the article, not on the nominator's activities outside of the article. WP:ADHOM. Ifnord (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Five Nights at Freddy's. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones[edit]

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

This page was actually rejected when it was in draftspace and consists almost entirely of an in-universe plot description. It really doesn't look like it meets the GNG. It's only got four references, and I couldn't find any professional reviews. It's probably best covered in a paragraph at the main Five Nights at Freddy's page. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to series article. I can't find any reviews in reliable sources (which should have happened, given confirmation the book was out in June). The book is a potential search term, so it should be merged and redirected. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series article, where the only hint of notability exists. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Seems like there's a few details to verify some brief details about it, and a series article to host it, but not enough to meet the WP:GNG. As the article writer even stated, there's no book reviews or sales figures available. Not a good sign for notability then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It is unreliably sourced, and it was taken from the original draft (I was the owner of the draft, but some user took the content). It must be merged with the Five Nights at Freddy's page. Plus, articles such as this one must have a "Reception" section in order to be move out of draft space, but since no critics have reviewed the novel The Twisted Ones, it is not eligible to be an article. Cosecant57 (talk) 17:20, 2017-09-20 (UTC)
Comment: If the consensus is ultimately to merge, the non-free use of the infobox image should be reassessed to see if the new way in which the file will be used still complies with WP:NFCCP. Non-free cover art is generally considered NFCCP compliant when it is being used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the work in question, but (as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3) requires a different (perhaps stronger) justification for non-free use when used in other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty normal step in the merge process. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redrafitfy - Move back to draft. There's clear consensus that this does not belong in mainspace.

Beyond that, opinion is split about whether to delete it outright or move it back to draftspace. This debate is more about how we treat draft space and stale drafts in general than the article subject in specific. I'm going to move this back to draft. If somebody feels it should be deleted, bring it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Sam & Honey[edit]

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

Non-notable toys. Fails WP:GNG. I failed to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Some blog sources exist in search but their reliability and significance are doubted. — Za wl 08:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this as a draft and did not move it into the article space largely due to the lack of sources to establish notability. I personally think that the brand or characters are likely notable for how long they've been around and the amount of merchandising they've been on, but I also could not find significant coverage in sources to demonstrate this. If they exist, they are probably covered in pre-Internet coverage and industry media. —Ost (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-draftify I have a major problem with the following sequence of events happening within the space of a day (intermediate edits trimmed from log):
1. 03:15, 4 September 2017‎ Legacypac (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,613 bytes) (+89)‎ . . (Submitting (AFCH 0.9))
2. 22:48, 4 September 2017‎ Sulfurboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,613 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Sulfurboy moved page Draft:Sad Sam & Honey to Sad Sam & Honey: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9))
3. 01:21, 5 September 2017‎ Zawl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,984 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad Sam & Honey. (TW))

That is, the original editor had not submitted it for AfC, but someone else did, a second editor approved it, and a third editor immediately took it to AfD. That's not a fair or appropriate process for an article that the creator felt was not yet ready for mainspace. Pinging Legacypac, Sulfurboy, and Zawl to comment here if desired. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-draftify, to be completely honest, with how backlogged AfC is, I trusted that Legacypac had already made good judgement on assessing the article without critically looking at it myself. This is not to pass blame in anyway to Legacy, I'm just as at fault for not further reviewing the page, and won't make this mistake in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page became eligible for G13 due to the expansion of G13 recently. I could have easily had it deleted. While reviewing the stale draft list I've taken to submitting promising drafts to AfC as a way of at least postponing deletion, often getting them published, or at worst getting a rejection that will guide the creator or other interested editor in improving them. In this case I think the long history and substantial sales justify a pass on GNG. Since most of the history is preinternet and the subject is not typical newspaper or academic material, I'd not expect a ton of easy to find sources. One would need to look in print toy trade publications. Blog hits would indicate a hobbiest following of the brand, which makes it notable, even if the blogs are not individually RS. This is good encyclopedia material, not promotional, and not problematic in any way. It surves the reader interested in old toys, a sizable group as an aging population seek connections to their childhood. Note I feel that AfC should pass drafts that are on appropriate topics and do not have serious problems - let the big pool of editors work on pages (many of whom have specialised interests) and let AfC act as a garbage filter. This is far from garbage, though not perfect, but should not be deleted or relegated to draft space where no editor with a suitably narrow interest to really do the topic justice will ever find it. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So Legacypac, I assume you're following the 'promising drafts' template discussion more closely than I am. Would sticking it back in draftspace with a promising draft template work to assuage everyone's concerns? Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt it User:Jclemens I've only seen the promising draft template used a handful of times (can you find how many translutions it has?) I've yet to see any of the same few editors that oppose changes to policy to improve draft space cleanup, oppose deletion of drafts at MfD, and demand more complex systems for handling drafts actually do ANYTHING to improve and promote these "promising drafts" they insist are being willy nilly deleted. Maybe I've missed something but I've got hundreds of such pages on my watchlist that have seen great protests against deletion made, but almost no one ever edits them. I've personally fixed and gotten promoted more promising drafts than all protesters combined. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 7 September 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)}}} 19:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this product meets WP:GNG. Few mentions in passing don't constitute notability. At long limb, maybe merge to Applause (toy company)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redraftify per ATD. ToThAc (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Zayne[edit]

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

Okay, I usually get at least one or two trivial mentions. But absolutely zero about this person. The only hit I got was his facebook page. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come anywhere near close to passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find sufficient evidence to show that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this time. gongshow talk 22:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources found. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliði Vignisson[edit]

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

Local mayor of a small municipality. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is horseshit but he is very well known in the country and a major player in its biggest political party. He's regulary in the nations major news outlets [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Should pass WP:GNG with flying colors. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep' Notable as it says above. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not too sure about the reliability and independence of some of those citations. #1 appears to be a simple rehash of a press release from the mayor, #2 is simply a reblog from the mayor's website, #3 is simple routine coverage of a local election, #4 is also simply a reblog from the mayor's website; #5 is a trivial mention; #6 is another reblog of his website; #7 is about a facebook discussion, really? – oh wait, it’s from Visir, which is a tabloid – hardly a reliable source; #8 is also another trivial mention. So of the 8, you have 2 trivial mentions, 1 non-reliable source, 1 routine local coverage, and 4 non-independent references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the conclusions by Onel5969 are correct, while others are not. The conclusions on sources 2,3,4,6 & 7 are correct. On 7, your first conclusion is correct, but on the other hand source 7 is not from a tabloid.

Visir is one of the most visited news websites in iceland - source and is also well-trusted - source. In the second source, which is in Icelandic, the blue color in the graphs represent percentage of people who trust the media, where as the red color is for distrust.

Source 1 is about an survey of which candidate should be in first place of the Icelandic independance party. Source 5 is about transport issues, i.e. Elliði is an mayor on a small island, which has an ferry connection which was non-existant when the article was written.--Snaevar (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - Thanks for that Snaevar - Obviously Icelandic is not my first language. How does this Vísir differ from the Vísir which merged with Dagblaðið? Are they related? If not, even if it is frequently visited, does that make it reliable? The subject of the article does not make me think it leans to solid news stories, but more along the line of gossip. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vísir.is is the website for Fréttablaðið, it is not related to the old Vísir. The old Vísir today would be Dagblaðið Vísir, or DV for short, which is more known for tabloid journalism. Those two stories from Vísir.is might not have been the best that I could have linked to I admit. The first is about the then financial minister and current prime minister Bjarni Benediktsson congratulating him on his landslide victory in the local election, the other is about comments about a controversy that rose about member of parlament's Smári McCarthy's alleged education (see more about that here here). Its author, Jakob Bjarna, tends to slide a fair bit towards tabloid journalism though, I'll concede to that. About the press qouting his blog (and social media), generally the press doesn't care to much about the opinions of run-of-the-mill small town mayors on national affairs but his are routenly featured in the nations major news outlets. They neither get called to a meeting with the prime minister on the day when a scandal brings down the goverement.[20] If the consensus is that the above links are not enough, then I point out that there are alot more articles featuring him on the major Icelandic newssites (I would recommend Morgunblaðið, Fréttablaðið and RÚV) if someone wants to go through them, I unfortunately won't have the time to do so in the comming days. Sorry about any spelling errors, it is morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet :) Dammit_steve (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and much thanks to Steve for saying it for me. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dougald Lamont[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political strategist, whose only stated or sourced indication of notability is being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future party leadership contest. Nothing here passes any subject-specific inclusion criterion in and of itself, but the article is not sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG: of the five sources here, three are his own primary sources (content he wrote, and his own self-published profile for an Indiegogo campaign), while the other two are just routine coverage of his leadership candidacy announcement itself -- and even one of those two is an unreliable source (National Newswatch) that cannot assist notability. All of which means we have only one acceptable source, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. unsuccessful political candidate, with no other notability DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, nothing suggests he is notable. -- Dane ^talk 20:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for party leader at the prinvincial level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Hill[edit]

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

The page should be deleted because the individual is not notable enough. The sources used in the article are: (1) Two Harlan Hill tweets, (2) Three Fox News op-eds or appearances, (3) a Daily Mail article about him, (4) An article in the Herald Sun which I can't access, (5) A Hollywood Reporter article where one interviewee mentions him once while spitballing a list of people, (6) Two rubbish Mediaite articles about him (one brief article that just summarizes what he said in a Fox appearance, and one poorly written article that primarily recites Hill tweeting about a potential Senate run). I tried to find any mention of Harlan Hill in the kinds of reliable sources that are typically used for politicians and pundits, and came up short. The only thing I could find was coverage by reliable sources of an episode where Donald Trump Jr. retweeted something that Hill said. Hill was only mentioned in passing in those articles. By the way, this page was deleted in 2015, see the discussion here[21]. In short, the reasons for deletion were that the page was self-promotion and there was insufficient sourcing. The 2017 version of the page has more sources, but the quality and quantity of sourcing is still way below what it should be for a notable individual, and having tried to find some myself, I can confirm that there is a dearth of reliable sources to add to this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to voice my strong suspicion that the account 'Patriot154' is Hill himself or someone with close ties to him. It's a two-month old account that has only edited this page (and done so extensively), with the exception of one short edit on another page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, that's interesting. I hadn't check the edit history. (Although when I have that sort of suspicion, I generally suspect not only the subject, but fans, family, and political supporters of the subject.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the sockpuppet investigators to look into it. The old Harlan Hill article had three sockpuppets, and they were all adding similar content as the 'patriot154' account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tagging all the editors who were involved the first time around (minus the sockpuppet accounts): MelanieN E.M.Gregory Non-dropframe reddogsix SpeedDemon520 Joseph2302 SwisterTwister Johnpacklambert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no recommendation about whether to keep or delete the current article. I will just say that I have evaluated whether it qualifies for G4 speedy deletion, and it does not. I compared it to the article I deleted in 2015, and it is quite different. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (change my iVote from)~~Keep~~ I was pinged to come here because I iVoted at the previous AfD. I iVoted to delete back then, but that was two years ago, and it's been quite a two years for this political strategist/commentator. (Well, it's been quite a two years for Americans who follow politics. period.) Hill has had a lot of media exposure, and gotten a lot of coverage in those two years. ~~So while he was not back then, I have to say that he is notable now.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A profile of him ~~form 1016~~ from 2016, (yeah, I know it's the Daily Mail,) 'Millennial TV personality': Meet the 25-year-old bow tie-wearing, Trump-supporting DEMOCRAT driving Nine's U.S. election coverage with Karl Stefanovic and Laurie Oakes, [22].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Daily Mail article, if anything, reflects poorly on the state of the article, since it's the only source that gives coverage of reasonable length to this individual. If this article is going to be kept, the Daily Mail piece, along with Harlan's tweets, the newly added Inquisitr piece and other non-RS will be removed on day one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a profile is a profile even in the Daily Mail. But it's not a great profile. Revisiting this, I did a more thorough search. He certainly has been the subject of a series of minor media flurries. Has been written up as a likely candidate for promotion to gigs on CNN and other media. And quoted, with short descriptors. However, I cannot find anything dispositive in the way of WP:SIGCOV coverage (even that Daily Mail profile is very brief), so I have to say that it is, at best, WP:TOOSOON and agree with Nom on Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe is a long time pundit on highly rated, national television. Based on YouTube search and an archive.org search, he has been on cable television hundreds and hundreds of times. Is also an advisor and visible spokesman for the President of the United States. Patriot154 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)— Patriot154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can anyone source "advisor" to President assertion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On every show he does now, they list it as his title. Ffirst Google search result I found on Fox Business Network: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5561394648001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot154 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that you're so familiar with him that you can confidently declare what his chyron says "on every show he does now", suggesting both that you watch all his appearances and over such a long period that you can pinpoint when the chyron descriptions changed. Hmmm...Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is true I have been following harlan for over a year, from when we was first on DML news, but I would not be able to pin point the time his change occurred. If you watch fox, you will see harlan. Look to his Facebook or twitter for more videos and appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot154 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot154, The thing is, media generally invite commentators to compose their own little min-bio used with articles and appearances, granted, editors or producers will sometimes work with you on the wording, but such tag lines are not enough to source the info on WP:BIO. What we need is an article, preferably 2 separate articles, published in WP:RS that describe Hill's position as an advisor to the President (essential before we can describe anyone as a "presidential advisor). And we also need WP:SIGCOV of this man and his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Mini-bios are usually self-authored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as notability is not inherited, and a few mini-bios aren't enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. NotInherited is NotPolicy, its an essay. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Në ato maja rripa-rripa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 12:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last Relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Martini[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Not entirely sure if performing once at the governors ball is notability enough. Has few external mentions that are more than in passing. PureRED | talk to me | 16:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the WP:MUSICBIO page I'd have to agree with you on that one. I wasn't aware of the existence of said page. Jack Martini will live to see another day. Calebny (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's close though! I looked for more notable things to add but couldn't find anything that I'd consider article worthy. PureRED | talk to me | 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Subject does not yet have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 20:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pelech[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources about him. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and despite his 500+ games in the ECHL, he has never won an award. He gets mentioned in other articles about his NHL-playing brothers, Matt Pelech and Adam Pelech, but not much significantly about him specifically. Redirecting to either one of brothers seems problematic as neither is really about Michael. Yosemiter (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished, if long, career. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from satisfying notability. Ravenswing 06:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell and doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY either. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and is mostly mentioned in passing. -- Dane ^talk 20:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of English Bible translations#Complete Bibles. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American King James Version[edit]

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

The article fails WP:N, in particular WP:GNG. I've done the required due diligence, and as far as I can tell there appears to be no reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. Right now the article cites only a description of the AKJV, posted by its producer on a software repository page. Searches turned up only more of the same -- either a mention in passing, or other copies of the exact same wording by the producer posted to a variety of websites. No news organization, no published book, and no journal article appears to discuss the AKJV in any significant way. No source with "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability", that is "independent of the subject," as WP:GNG puts it, seems to exist. Alephb (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or Keep~~ This article on a modification of the King James (it switches in familiar modern words for archaic words to make the text easier for us moderns to read and understand) published as a searchable, online document is tricky because my searches show a large number of books, and a significant number of WP:RS daily newspapers using this version when they want to quote a Bible text. When a Version of the bible is being widely used in books and media, it is reasonable for our readers expect to be able to look it up. On the other hand, it wasn't reviewed the way a new translation would be, and there is little or nothing in the way on significant coverage of this version itself. (I did see brief descriptions of the method used in reliable-looking books). We have a Category:King James Version editions, but no page dedicated to Versions of the King James Bible to redirect to. Nevertheless, my preference if for a redirect. I think the best solution is to add a subhead King James Bible#Later versions of the King James Bible to the 7 subheads now under King James Version#History and do a selective merge/redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And consider creating a page of King James Version editions, to which this and some of the pages in Category:King James Version editions could be merged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which newspapers are using the American King James Version? Alephb (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Telegraph Herald, The Journal Gazette, and more. Just ordinary, American papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to be clear -- are you arguing that the American King James Version meets the WP:GNG standard, or that we should ignore the GNG standard in this case? Alephb (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not; I intended to say that there is a little coverage in books and in denominational publications that can be used to source an article, but I think a redirect to a sentence or two in an article or two on Later versions of the King James Bible would be useful to our readers, and there are sources to justify it. the fact that books and newspapers cite this version is support for the usefulness-to-readers argument. As is the fact taht the article does get views, unlike many articles that come to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Let's take the Philadelphia tribune. Where does it use the American King James Version? Like what day, what article, what author? A specific citation would help, because otherwise the claim is fairly hard to believe. Did you find this via reading in print or a web search? If it's a web search, can you direct me toward it so I can see for myself?Alephb (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it hard to believe? It was an early-ish online bible, and I have no trouble believing that people who want a bible passage nowadays google it.
All I did was to key "American King James vrsion" into proquest

"A refrain one hears more often than he or she cares to is "It's in the Bible." You know how some people will find a verse in the Bible to justify whatever they believe, right or wrong. Thus, I was referred to Exodus, Chapter 3:22 in the American King James version of the Bible that reads: "But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourns in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment and you shall put them on your sons, and on your daughters; and you shall spoil the Egyptians." For those borrowers who refer to this verse to justify their behavior, its interpretation has been taken out of context, with their focus being totally on the word "borrow." While borrowing things may not have had a Biblical basis, it was a practice that was widespread, back in the day." A neighborly act no longer in style,Kittrels, Alonzo. Philadelphia Tribune; Philadelphia, Pa. [Philadelphia, Pa]04 Dec 2011: 3B. [A neighborly act no longer in style Kittrels, Alonzo. Philadelphia Tribune; Philadelphia, Pa. [Philadelphia, Pa]04 Dec 2011: 3B. ]
"It wasn't easy to stop our old ways of laughing at each other's mistakes and apparent weaknesses. The Bible gave us strength: "Charity ... rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (I Corinthians 13:4, 6, American King James Version). This assured us that God's love corrects firmly and patiently, without humiliation. God shines His law through our hearts and minds, and there is a balance between His moral law and His unconditional mercy. ", Breaking the mocking habit," White, Louise. The Christian Science Monitor; Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]19 Apr 2012 [23]
" Even though scripture does not say much about singleness, what it does say is powerful. I Corinthians 7 contains the following verses about singleness:"He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married cares for the things of the world, how he may please his wife." (American King James version, verses 32-33)", "People of Praise: Churches must embrace, encourage single people" Cook, Katia. Journal - Gazette; Ft. Wayne, Ind. [Ft. Wayne, Ind]30 Jan 2011: D.6. [24], and more, but that gives you an idea. Look, I do take your point, the article is unsourced, and there is not much in the way of WP:INDEPTH on this version. All I am saying is that when an edition of the Bible is widely cited in newspapers and books, our readers are likely to expect a sentence or two about what that edition/version is. I see it as part of Wikipedia's role in settling the sort of bickering that can break out after a beer or two over any assertion of "fact." We have all heard silly arguments that turn on which translation of a Bible verse is "right." And someone else says: no, no, the Vulgate hat that wrong but the King James says.... I am arguing that at the point in that argument when someone googles this American Version up to prove a point, and the other guy says: That's not what the King James says... We have a duty to enable a third guy to check out what the American James Bible Verison is, so that everyone can go home friends and sleep it off. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the references. That is helpful. The reason I was confused was that I had run both a Google News and a Google News Archive search and found nothing in either one for "American King James Version," so it was very strange to hear someone tell me that it is widely used in newspapers. Next time I nominate an article for deletion (if there is a next time) I'll also add Proquest to my list of tools to try. I'd never heard of it. I guess the Google News searches are not nearly as comprehensive as I thought. Alephb (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alephb, Proquest is unfortunately behind a paywall, as is the Highbeam news archive, if you want to read whole articles. However, Highbeam can be searched by anyone and snippets of articles come up, you can see a few on the toolbar at the top of this page, a very convenient way to check for notability. And, of sources, no news archive finds everything; I regularly find WR:RS media cited in old WP articles, news articles that turn out to be real, but that didn't turn up in archive searches. Pleasure working with you.19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Odd situation. this Bible gets cited, it gets used and recommended by churches and writers that are or that appear to be within the King James Only movement, and I would like to be able to keep it in some form because explaining to readers the nature of any somewhat widely translation of the Bible is useful. But I can't find an independent source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could replace it with a redirect to List of English Bible translations#Complete Bibles, where it already gets a mention. Alephb (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of English Bible translations#Complete Bibles, as per User:Alephb's excellent suggestion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree, it doesn't seem to pass WP:V, but seems like a likely search term. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- I thought that all Bible translations were notable. This appears not merely to be an edition, with American spelling, but updated vocabulary, presumably removing obsolete words and those whose meaning has changed. That makes it a translation, not a mere edition. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GNG for the standards of what is notable. "Being a Bible translation" is not in there as a substitute for significant coverage in reliable sources. Alephb (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not substantially notable enough to remain outside of a list. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayy Queezy[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure this meets WP:MUSICBIO. Mentions are trivial at best, and sources are questionable. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PureRED | talk to me | 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other musical artist pages on wikipedia that has the same amount of detail that this page does currently and are still up and this one was uploaded yesterday, with that said instead of removing the page it would be great to add whatever people feels is missing to make it a above average contribution. Teamwork will make the article even more precise as it was uploaded yesterday it's a load of time that should be passed before getting rid of it entirely as there much more information other wikipedia users will bring in overtime. Everyone have a blessed day. Also I'd like to point out Jayy Queezy has a strong seo on Google and has songs with popular artists such as Katie Got Bandz, Famous Dex, Gucci Mane and has met with Epic Records which all can be seen with a search. He also has videos on his instagram opening up for famous artists Tink and Young Dro. Furthermore, he will be performing at an BET hip-hop awards weekend event next month whch was included as a reference link in the wikipedia page. Jaquez123 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Puebla earthquake[edit]

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

Declined PROD. WP:NOTNEWS. Sorry. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Wikipedia may not be news, but this is a very large earthquake that struck within a limited of Mexico City. At least give it awhile. Wikipedia's space isn't limited so much that a tiny stub will cause any problems. Master of Time (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a destructive event. Dawnseeker2000 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close. No brainer. The afd is a nonsense, not a good faith maybe an abuse. - EugεnS¡m¡on 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Catastrophic earthquake near major city; there will inevitably be major damage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Shaughnessy (businessman)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As article creator, I abstain from !vote on notability concerns. I'm not convinced he's notable. I have added a second reference and the {{stub}} tag since nomination. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced of his notability after doing some more research on him. -- Dane ^talk 20:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B2B Pay[edit]

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

Contested PROD; rationale was: "Does not meet WP:CORP, as none of the independent sources (bar the article by Thomas Ohr) provides in-depth coverage."

Since then, all the references have been replaced by new ones, and the Thomas Ohr article is bizarrely gone as well. Of the new refs, there's just one that comes close to being WP:RS (the article by Sven Korschinowski), but it is devoid of anything that could be used for an encyclopaedic entry. Before prodding, I checked for reliable sources myself but drew a blank. Schwede 66 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of coverage. The article subject is an investment bank, but fails to show how it is different from other banks and as such fails WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Dane ^talk 20:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of HBO video releases[edit]

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

Fails WP:CATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No evidence of notability. --wooden superman 14:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Exhaustive indiscriminate list with no verification. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly on the verification issue, a mass-produced, home video release is a reliable source for its own existence and content no less than a published book is. You don't need yet another source telling you that a source exists or who published it any more than you need a citation supporting the validity of a citation. The only question then is how much info do you need specifying a particular printing/edition of a release. Or if we're going to make a claim as to the completion of this list or about details of release extrinsic to the product itself, we would then want sources for those claims/extrinsic facts. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Areg Shahinyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV and is totally unsourced. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO for sure. I wasn't able to find sourcing for this either. -- Dane ^talk 20:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable musician and lacks sources.122.171.75.98 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (public figure)[edit]

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

This is an encyclopedia, not a reptile zoo. Only tabloid or tabloid-style coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete flash-in-the-pan freak show coverage all within a month. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

777 World Tour[edit]

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

Promotional. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a search for sources shows nothing in the way of independent, reliable coverage by major publications and merely ticket advertisements. "777 World Tour" elicits far more results for Rihanna than Jason Derulo which is why I have included Derulo in the search term. DrStrauss talk 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's too soon for the upcoming 777 album to warrant a standalone article, then it's a good bet that an article on the tour is even more premature. As WP:NTOUR suggests, it may become notable once coverage exists which discusses "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience," etc, but we are not there yet. gongshow talk 06:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Dane ^talk 20:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firka (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software—J. M. (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails all four criteria for software notability: no independent, reliable coverage, no educational significance, no major reviews and no recognition in the technological community. A sources search reveals little other than forum posts which are no good for establishing notability due to lack of editorial oversight and self-published sources. DrStrauss talk 13:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a software item with poor references: one primary and the other a software gallery. I am not finding better and see nothing which could meet the WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing a bit early since it's WP:SNOWing in sunny Southern California. ansh 666 09:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deontay Burnett[edit]

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

Non-pro player. Not notable Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single editor contribution suggests possible WP:COI written as WP:PROMO and fails GNG --EC Racing (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment College football players generally aren't notable, unless they win a significant national award (for WP:ANYBIO#1). I don't know what the "All-Bowl team" is, but I don't think that qualifies as a significant award. However, the coverage is close to meeting WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per sources cited by WikiOriginal-9. Cbl62 (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per WikiOriginal-9's sources and research. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per the sources provided above by WikiOriginal-9. Lepricavark (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep single editor is a non-issue for me because the content looks okay so there's not real policy violation. Sources presented seem to pass WP:GNG easily. LA Times, Detroit News, ESPN...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing clearly shows notability and passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. If the sources do go into depth on the author, we could potentially build an article on the subject, but I remain skeptical without seeing the full text. It wholly depends on whether the coverage is local/minor (passing mentions) or goes into depth on his life. Someone else can pursue this as they please. czar 20:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Andrews (activist)[edit]

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

A host of issues. This bio is a Christian activist and speaker, but for purposes of disambiguation, perhaps a writer foremost. The article is currently sourced entirely to primary (affiliated) sources, such as self-supplied author bios to websites/conferences (the patently unreliable sections have already been removed). There does not appear to be significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) with which to write an article that does justice to the topic. Of his many books, reliable reviews are not forthcoming, and his activism work does not appear to have been profiled in reliable sources. Andrews has appeared as a guest on multiple broadcasts, but for topical interest and not with sustained interest in his life/career. There are no suitable redirect targets. czar 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, available sourcing meets WP:GNG. User talk:Czar, I started my evaluation by looking at the edit record and saw your diligent removal of a mass of unreliably-sourced material; while I didn't take a close look at your edit, I admire any editor willing to do the heavy-lifting of deleting a mass of badly-sourced material from a long-standing WP:BIO. My next step was to run a quick gNews search. Obviously he has a hopelessly common name, so I searched "Dave Andrews" + Christian and all this came up [36]. Right on the first page of the search there's a Q & A in the Sydney Morning Herald, "Lunch with Dave Andrews" Jihad for Jesus," [37]. Since he has been an activist for 40 years, my next step was a proquest archives search, also on "Dave Andrews" + Christian. 245 results, which is a lot for an activist, minor writer, and Right on the first page there were "Queensland Christian leader calls for end to Muslim hate; A Queensland Christian leader is encouraging the public to say G'day to Muslims and to accept their faith as a sign of solidarity.", ABC, [38] - a detailed article about his work; and "Across a Violent Divide", in The Australian, a long profile and analysis of Andrews' 2015 book "The Jihad Of Jesus - The Sacred Nonviolent Struggle For Justice" [39]. So I searched gNews for "The Jihad Of Jesus - The Sacred Nonviolent Struggle For Justice", and got, well, not a lot of hits, but some, [40]. Summing up, he's hardly in a league with Dorothy Day, but there does seem to be quite a lot of coverage. Maybe just tag it for improvement and keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google News searches too, but beyond that SMH and possibly ABC, it's all local news or cursory treatments: [41][42] and at the very least not significant coverage. My PQ access is down and I don't know when it'll be back up. @E.M.Gregory, would you please

email me those ProQuest texts? czar 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the ABC piece [43]; and from The Australian: [44].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried a different keyword on Proquest (to make sure I really was seeing enough, given that you also tried and didn't find), this time I used "Dave Andrews" + India + Australia, places the articles I mentioned above said that he has worked. Up came: Evening Post More than a neighborly nod, PENNINGTON, Phil. Evening Post; Wellington, New Zealand [Wellington, New Zealand]06 Aug 1996: 5. [45], a profile describing him as "one of Australia's foremost practitioners of community development, but passionate. ". Faiths share goal of understanding, Passmore, Daryl. The Sunday Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]20 Apr 2008: 38. [46], an article about how Andrews helped an Afghan family immigrate to Australia and settle in. He's described as "a radical Christian leader... A community worker whose emphasis on practical spirituality over organised religion has often put him at odds with the church, Mr Andrews lives and works among some of Brisbane's most marginalised people in the inner-city suburb of West End -- indigenous people, drug-users, ex-prisoners and those with mental illness -- attempting to live, rather than merely preach, Jesus's teachings." The article has more on him. And there seem to be more , similar articles. Looks like he's been getting this kind of feature coverage for years, but you have to get lucky with the keywords your type in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going on your word, that's probably enough to write an article, but would you please share the full text with me so I can take a look (perhaps

by email or temporary dropbox)? czar 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC) @E.M.Gregory, ping czar 14:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article can be expanded with info found at a gBooks search on "Dave andrews" + "christian anarchist", here: [47]. Page should probably be moved to Dave Andrews (activist) because he is far better known for his social activism, than for his books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, now that we have sources for his activism czar 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Some of the earlier books are with mainline Christian publishers. I am less familiar with the publishers of later works, but the amount is sufficient to warrant having a WP bio. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, where are the reviews? czar 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdrew the nomination. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parimal Trivedi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only claim of notability should be deleted per WP:BLPCRIME. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as he was the Vice-Chanceller (the highest post) of Gujarat University, one of the major universities of Gujarat state of India. He received coverage mostly in local Gujarati language so limited English sources are available. Apart from controversies around him, we should check his academic profile and contribution. I agree that two line article is not helpful but hope that there would be enough refs to make it atleast start-class.--Nizil (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:PROF criterion 6. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". ~~Vice-Chancellor is not the highest-level~~. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be damned. It is the highest (governor is the ex-officio chancellor). I guess I'll withdraw my nomination. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Linecker[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer who fails GNG and who's work is on minor films that don't amount to inclusion under our notability guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His newest film Christmas Crime Story with Adrian Paul and Eric Close is up on iTunes for preorder. He is not a non-notable film producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookwriter2015 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No coverage and only source is to the IMDB page which is not evidence of notability. -- Dane ^talk 20:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a producer of non-notable films, and producers are less notable than directors. In the case of the one film we have an article on Christmas Crime Story he is one of 3 producers, and the only source on that article is the films own website, so I have doubts about that article as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ok, this is a bit of a mess, so:

That other things have Wikipedia pages does not mean this one should. For one thing, the other articles may also merit deletion. For the other thing, they may be different.
Speculation on there being persecution does not help anyone, especially when there is no proof.
Merely asserting that something is notable is not enough for keeping a topic.
It is rather impolite to talk about "egos" in a discussion on whether we should have an article on something. Making an account solely to insult a person is unacceptable.
On the flipside, it's also impolite to start hunting down editors because they started a deletion discussion. We don't have any personal dislike of the article topic, just concerns about whether they meet or don't meet our admittedly not always clear (and to people unfamiliar with the details, arbitrary) inclusion criteria.
A deletion discussion 10 years ago on a different project is not necessarily irrelevant, although in general you'd want to explain whether the arguments provided apply here and now on enwiki.
When people say that someone is notable (and not in the sense of WP:N) or important it's useful to show evidence.
While not explicitly prohibited, it's often a bad idea to make an account solely to !vote in a certain way in an AfD.

All that said, it seems like there is no indication that the topic meets WP:GNG and consensus excluding the SPA and poorly argued IP posts lends itself to the notion that WP:PROF isn't met either. And thus, we cannot have an article on this topic at this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Becker Westphall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Page should not exist. It is very clear that the subject is the one reverting deletion requests. He does not provide citation for most claims and fills the article with useless claims (such as "Talk in WhateverCon 2017"). Also, page was nominated before and the nomination was closed as delete, but the deletion was reverted for some reason.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THIS PAGE SHOULD EXIST. NOTE THAT DELETING THIS PAGE WOULD BE AN ABSURD. WHY PROFESSOR WESTPHALL HAS A GREAT PROFILE. WELL BETTER THAN MANY OTHER PROFESSORS AND WIKIPAGE ARTICLES. IT IS ENOUGH TO ANALYZE YOUR PERFORMANCE INDEXES AS SHOWN ON RESEARCHGATE AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A GREAT ENVIRONMENT AND PERSECUTION AGAINST THE COMPUTER SCIENCE OF THIS UNIVERSITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.228.109 (talk • contribs) — 150.162.228.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I'm sorry, but not every professor deserves their own Wikipedia article especially one that isn't at all notable. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment THIS PAGE SHOULD EXIST. You must be consistent. What authority do you have to say that a professor is or is not notable? Certainly he is much more notable than others that have articles in wikipedia. So you're being unfair. In addition, the article has already been corrected and changed to be in accordance with the wikipedia requirements. Even so, you have disregarded these facts and commented on problems that no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.228.117 (talk • contribs) — 150.162.228.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Fails WP:BIO: he has no coverage other than his papers (i.e. are non independent). Fails all items of WP:ACADEMIC; his most cited work has 272 citations, not very remarkable in computer science, and he's not the first author in it. Also, the all-caps comments here against deletion are form a IP inside the professor's university, which could indicate a conflict of interest. Shinigami3 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Shinigami3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: multiple IPs that appear to be the same person are being used to derail the discussion. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Congratulations Professor Westphall. Google Scholar - Citations 1911, h-index 17, ResearchGate 42.92; 476,063 Reads. Top Top Professor. Full professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (Brazil), since 1993. Founder of the IEEE Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium and of the Network and Management Laboratory at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Editorial board of Computer Networks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.149.195 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — 177.16.149.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep THIS PAGE MUST BE EXISTING ONE. IT SHOULD BE KEPT. Professor Westphall is much more notable than any other. He has already taken necessary measure to meet the wikipedia requirements. Congratulations Professor Westphall ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.223.151 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — 14.139.223.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm going to bet you a pack of salt and vinegar crisps that this professor is more notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comment to all participants in this debate. Please be advised that !votes that are not policy based will likely be ignored by the closing admin. If you want to argue that this bio should be kept, then please show evidence that Westphall meets either WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC (one of them is enough). To whomever is organizing this infestation of anonymous IPs: please stop, your efforts are really harming your case and as all these IP !votes are likely to be ignored completely, the effort is wasted. Finally: please comment on the issues, not on people. Please see WP:AFD if you're not familiar with how these debates are run. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page should be removed. Wikipedia is no place for egos but for knowledge sharing. It should try to resemble some "Internet yellow pages". 9:41, 20 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.73.178.254 (talk) — 164.73.178.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: actually, WP is an encyclopedia and should not resemble "some Internet yellow pages" (see WP:NOTADIRECTORY). And "knowledge sharing" includes biographies of notable persons, which is what should be the topic of this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would keep Carlos Becker Westphall's page simply for the reason that he seems to be unique in disseminating useful information to mailing list subscribers. Having said that, I doubt whether Professor Westphall ultimately cares about the fate of this page. If he truly did revert the attempt at deletion, he probably did so out of a sense of injustice, rather than a misplaced sense of self-aggrandizement. Edepa (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) _{Moved from talk page}[reply]
Delete. Article offers no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mr. Westphall may be a nice guy who sends useful information to mailing lists, the article should be deleted because he fails at WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC. I'm sorry. Yogistrop (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Yogistrop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Mr. Westphall thinks is "under attack" because his page was nominated for deletion. He so concerned about his page that he even has sent an email to thousands of subscribers of Brazilian Computer Society's mailing list (original, requires registration, and copy) asking for help to locate and identify the "aggressor" behind IP 150.162.12.112. As you can see, there is no aggression whatsoever from IP, and his only edit was an ordinary deletion request of an article about someone that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC. Yogistrop (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh my god, this is getting shameful. They are talking about breaking user privacy completely to chase on someone that marked the article for deletion for lack of notability? The university administration should be informed of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.109.75 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We are solely concerned with issues of notability here. Up till now, the arguments presented boil down to "does not meet etc" or "keep this page". There's a lot of words, but very few arguments. For those arguing for "keep", please tell us how the subject meets any of the listed notability guidelines. For those arguing against, please tell us how the subject does not meet those guidelines. As for any off-wiki harassment, WP:ANI is the place for that, not this AfD. Concerning the off-wiki canvassing (not really something that merits informing a university administration about), as I have stated above, that is pretty useless, as the closing admin will without any doubt ignore all the SPA/IP !votes (on both sides of the debate). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SamHolt6 - doesn't meet notability standards. There are zero independent refs - 1 to a journal listing and 1 to a database. The reasons for deletion back in 2008 still apply as well.

A couple of reason to delete are probably more suggestive of major problems than (strictly speaking) based on policy. There is no corresponding article in Portugese, which I'd expect if he was notable in Brazil. Also the photo appears to be a passport photo (see imprinted seal on the side) and was uploaded as "own work" by the same editor who re-created the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am new at wiki - this is the first time I am posting! Disclosure: I have met Dr. Carlos Becker Westphall once many years ago. Two of my students and I participated in a tutorial that he was the speaker of and we all significantly benefitted from the tutorial (it was an impressive work). I am somewhat familiar with his research contributions. In addition, I am not a relative and also do not know him personally. Dr. Westphall is probably one of the most well known Computer Scientists in Brazil. He has name recognition above and beyond most others in South America. His DSc is in Computer Science from one of the most prestigious institutions in France. He has published in stringently reviewed journals and conferences and has won best paper awards. He has served all major associations in a selfless manner (including IEEE, CNOM, ...) and has received formal appreciation awards from them. He has been the team coordinator of European research initiatives and has led research teams in Brazil. He has (and continues) serving on various journal and conference editorial boards. Dr. Westphall's published work has received about 2,000 citations with a very healthy acceleration in his citation record (69, 97, 157, 197, 250, 244, 287 citations for years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively). His papers published in 2010 "A cloud computing solution for patient's data collection in health care institutions" and "Intrusion detection for grid and cloud computing" are of award quality each receiving over 250 citations. According to worldcat.org ( https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2008187999/ ); some of his published work has been translated into three languages (17 in Portuguese, 7 in English, and 2 in French). Many of his work as editor have been produced in multiple editions. According to Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:network_and_service_management ), he is the THIRD highest cited researcher in "Network and Service Management). He is also among the top 80 researchers in IoT. If the above (which is a very small subset of Dr. Westphall's achievement) does not qualify him to be included in wiki, then I do not know who would qualify. I can provide more information about his achievements but at the same time I know that none of what I say matters. The wiki editors would do what they wish (I have seen wiki "editors" in acts of low integrity and low ethics when it comes down to people of good repute). It is offensive to read some of the comments on this page. Schultzr (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Schultzr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. "According to Google Scholar (...) he is the THIRD highest cited researcher in Network and Service Management". No, he is not. He is the 3rd out of 18 researchers in the number of total citations among the researchers that created a profile in Google Scholar and labelled one of their research areas as "Network and Service Management". He is not even the third highest cited author within "Network and Service Management" research area, whatever that buzzword means... Yogistrop (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources tell that he is "one of the most well known Computer Scientists in Brazil"? I do not see any. If we had such RS (and they were telling anything of substance and interesting about the person), that would be a very different story. Without supporting WP:RS, he looks like plain non-notable. "THIRD highest cited researcher in"... his lab. And this is all one can tell to justify his notability. The lab is not notable as well, even by WP standards. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [redacted: personal attack on Westphal removed; one more edit like this and you'll be blocked from editing.] TheTruthSpeaker _(smalltalk) :18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — TheTruthSpeaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete His article in the Portuguese Wikipedia was deleted in 2007 because, like this one, it wasn't encyclopedic content. It was mostly a transcription of his curriculum vitae (again, just like this one). Here's the link to the AfD in the Portuguese Wikipedia. 2801:84:0:1018:C82:9FA6:DE9:7B5C (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — 2801:84:0:1018:C82:9FA6:DE9:7B5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Different wikis have different standards. What happened on the pt wiki is immaterial here. AfDs from 10 years ago are even less pertinent. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ All his major research contributions were published AFTER 2007. He is now qualified to be included in wiki. It is very telling that those of you who are recommending "delete" are not countering one single statement I said above. Some of your reasoning included "I am one of his students ..." and/or his wiki was deleted before (over a DECADE ago). In fact, you are all making my case - the reasons that you are providing in removing the wiki page make my case for keeping it. Schultzr (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Schultzr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Please only !vote once. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prof Westphall's bio aligns with WP:ACADEMIC standards have been providing a significant contribution to Brazilian academia along more than 30 years of Full Professorship. His research has had a significant impact in Network Management, a discipline of Computer Sciences, as demonstrated by his list of publications, co-authorships, promotion of research networks, and number of citations. Moreover, he has provide an extensive contribution to formation of human resources and the next generation fo researchers and innovators in Brazil. Prof. Westphall has received numerous academic acclaims and awards at national and international levels, heading some of the most prestigious initiatives in Network Management research in the world, such as NOMS. His work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. He has head the Journal of Network and Management Systems, a notorious publication venue in the area. From a personal point, I know Prof Westphall for over 20 years and can assure his commitment to the formation of next generation of researchers in Brazil. He is not a sef-promoting personal and I see his interest at Wikepedia as setting a role model to promote leadership in research in Brazil. As an expat Brazilian researcher, I highlight the importance of equity and equivalence in promoting diversity of research approaches and consider the equivalence of research output between from leader researchers in developing and underrepresented regions. fkoch (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Fernandokoch2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I'm afraid that your spirited praising of Westphall does not carry much weight. This is not a vote. Just saying "I like him" is not enough. You will have to show with reliable sources independent of the subject, how he meets one of the guidelines mentioned above. As a word of advice to other SPAs kreeping out of the woodwork: save your breath. Unless your arguments are policy-based, they will be ignored. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations on GS in this very high cited field not enough yet to pass WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing else, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This Prof. made no breakthrough or is relevant for Computer Science in general. Albeit there are many publications, his h-index is low compared to other notable people in the area (list of professors with h-index more than 40). His publications are not even listed among the List of important publications in computer science in Computer Science. In addition, he doesn't meet any criteria to be listed in List of computer scientists. So, unless he does something notable, in my opinion, this page should be removed since it is centered on quantity instead of quality. Fettboba (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — Fettboba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The list you cite is extremely selective, containing only an estimated 0.06% of all computer scientists. We usually put the bar much lower here at WP. And if this bio is kept (which looks unlikely at this point), it would need to be included in the list of computer scientists (having an article here is sufficient to be included in that list, being or not being in that list has no bearing on notability). And, yes, some people are notable because of the quantity of their work, not necessarily the quality. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF clearly not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete and utter blank when searching for sources. I've got a sore head from reading the discussions further up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable citation profile, no evidence of major awards, no sources indicating that something he wrote has become a standard text... I'm just not seeing a way to pass WP:PROF, let alone any other guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails to pass WP:PROF and doesn't show that he's done anything remarkable enough in Computer Science for coverage. -- Dane ^talk 20:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is simply nothing significant in his biography, nothing that would be worth including in online encyclopedia. WP is not a listing of individuals from various fields. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated for deletion Network and Management Laboratory. Same thing. This is pure advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think the off-wiki canvassing may have slightly poisoned the well here. Google Scholar returns a high number of citations to Westphall's work, although perhaps not enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field like computer science, and Fernandokoch2017 mentions a few things that suggest a potential pass of other PROF criteria. But we would need some sources for that, which I can't find. I'd be interested to hear if David Eppstein had any insight. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Joe Roe: Fernandokoch2017 did not disclosure Mr. Westphall was his master's degree advisor[48], and they has been publishing papers together for a long time. Actually Mr. Westphall is co-author in 25% of the Fernandokoch2017's papers listed in DBLP [49]. Therefore I would take Fernandokoch2017's comment with a grain of salt. Yogistrop (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yep. And given that your only edits here are to get Westphall's bio deleted, your comments are certain to be taken with a grain of salt, too. I don't care who was advising who. It's arguments and sources that count, not !votes. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may not care who was advising who but I'm pretty sure other people (including the future closer of this AfD) would like to know why some opinions may be highly biased. Anyway it's funny see you complaining about the account I've created to participate in this AfD because I did it because someone else asked me so. I was just fine editing anonymously and I plan to back to anonymity after this ends. Yogistrop (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': Ritchie's response was to an IP whose only contributions where about Westphall, as is the case for your current account. If you want to be taken more seriously in this kind of discussions, you'd better show more contribution history. As for "biased" comments that are not policy based (just like the one directly below by Nick 1976), those are routinely ignored by closing admins (and I speak from experience, having closed hundreds of AfDs and participated in even more). --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article should be kept as per WP:ACADEMIC. Prof. Westphall is a known proponent of free access information (articles and books). He is also a well respected researcher on Cloud related issues with proven track record in both publishing and directing graduate degree students. Nick 1976 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — Nick 1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete. This AfD is a mess of canvassing, new editors unfamiliar with our standards, and apparent animus on both sides. To run through some of the arguments we might try using to help resolve this:
- Westphall is a fellow of an organization called IARIA [50], but I've never heard of that organization before and from web searches they appear to be, or to once have been, or to have been accused of being, a spammy organizer of low-quality for-profit conferences; for instance they were included on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers before it was taken down. So I don't think this is good for a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and may count against Westphall more than it counts for him.
- Westphall has moderate (borderline) numbers of citations in a high-citation field, not so high as to convince me of a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 but high enough that it's not a clear fail either. The questionable nature of IARIA might cast into doubt some of his citation counts, but I looked through them and they look like valid citations from other authors rather than self-citations, many of them in respectable non-IARIA publications, so if there's a citation circle going on here it's not an obvious one.
- Maybe the best claim to fame from his web site is that he founded the Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium, which is run by a more respectable organization, IEEE. We can certainly verify that he was the editor for the first of these symposia. But it's not clear to me that it's a notable event itself, let alone notable enough for its founder to have any inherited notability. Founding a conference is not one of the WP:PROF criteria so we'd have to go to WP:GNG to get notability that way, and without in-depth independently-written and independently-published sources for his role in the conference, there's not much hope there.
- He's on various editorial boards but that's not enough for notability without being editor in chief, per WP:PROF#C8. Similarly, he has a leadership role within IEEE CNOM but without heading that organization it's not enough for WP:PROF#C6.
- He has some best paper awards but those never count for much.

So, in summary, there are some arguments for notability, maybe enough to justify a weak keep but nothing clear-cut. There is clearly both a lot of self-promotion and a lot of reaction to the self-promotion, and very little in the way of independent reliable sourcing that would allow us to cut through all of this hullabaloo and write a neutral article. So I'm on the fence, but I think the lack of good sourcing for this is tilting me towards deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Per David Eppstein's detailed analysis. The citation data (which I added to the article) gave me pause, but I'm convinced by David's arguments. Fails to meet GNG or ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was deleted several times from Wikipedia in Portuguese 1/2/3/4. See also: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] and [56]. Bilhauano (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not improve significantly from last deletion (or really any of the lots of deletions of the above comment), so the same arguments still apply. Even though he seems to have some relation to some relevant things, I can't find strong bounds that make the subject notable enough for the rules. --Lordfire (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC) — Lordfire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failed to advance a proper rationale for deletion and WP:BEFORE was obviously not used. No one other than the nominator recommends deletion. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandini Sreedharan[edit]

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

She married her boyfriend secretly, who was a crew member of a TV reality show in which she participated, since her parents strongly opposed their relationship. However, Kerala High Court has legally allowed the marriage under the special marriage act, by rejecting the Habeas Corpus filed by her mother, Rajini. She also has one daughter.many times i have been deleted this postion but it is restoring again Sadiqkhan79 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7. Nominator is also page creator. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator has stated an invalid rationale for deletion, citing no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Long standing article with evidence of notability presented. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actress who was the main heroine in at least 4 major films - easy WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR pass. Content disputes should not be solved by starting a deletion discussion, but must be discussed in the talk page. Jupitus Smart 09:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Czech television[edit]

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

Extended list of individual articles.

1955 in Czech television
1956 in Czech television
1957 in Czech television
1958 in Czech television
1961 in Czech television
1963 in Czech television
1964 in Czech television
1965 in Czech television
1966 in Czech television
1967 in Czech television
1968 in Czech television
1969 in Czech television
1970 in Czech television
1971 in Czech television
1972 in Czech television
1973 in Czech television
1974 in Czech television
1975 in Czech television
1976 in Czech television
1977 in Czech television
1978 in Czech television
1979 in Czech television
1981 in Czech television
1982 in Czech television
1983 in Czech television
1985 in Czech television
1987 in Czech television
1988 in Czech television
1996 in Czech television
1998 in Czech television
2004 in Czech television
2005 in Czech television
2006 in Czech television
2007 in Czech television
2008 in Czech television
2010 in Czech television
2012 in Czech television
2013 in Czech television
2015 in Czech television
2016 in Czech television

In similar vein to this AFD and this AFD, this group of pages was mass-created by one user with almost zero information included. After an ANI discussion it was decided that we probably didn't need all of them.

The content in these articles is mostly just birth dates, which aren't really directly related "Albanian television" in that particular year. The other spattering is mostly trivial and could be covered by categories. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AfDs and as lists that are primarily lists of birth dates of BLPs without sourcing. That's deletable under per WP:DOB. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all empty shells, per the previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For whatever it worth. Although it should be noted I was heavily involved in the original discussion, so I'm not sure if my !vote should really count for much. TJW ^talk 19:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an American TV year editor, I get what they're trying to do (except the births stuff), but a rule at WP is to have substance for an article creation prior. None of these have that and obviously no public interest to expand them. — Wylie pedia 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's not enough information to support these pages. A single Timeline of Czech television page would likely be sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Cook[edit]

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

I reversed a misleading redirect on this one, as editor had deemed it not notable and had redirected to a character she was one of a number of actresses to have played. I think the best course of action would be to seek consensus on whether she is notable as an actress or not and if the article is deleted, not to redirect. --wooden superman 13:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Single WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actress who hasn't got a screen credit on IMDB for 30 years? Looking at the find sources results, it appears someone entirely different should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name... Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of TLW&W work but not enough for an article. As stated, deletion would pave the way for a topical politician. — Wylie pedia 05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eriko Kawasaki[edit]

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

Twinkle stumbled when I tried this for the first time I think due to including a Japanese link. Anyway- Subject is a musician that does not appear to make WP:MUSICBIO because her albums have not charted nor seems to have a strong fan following. Discography section also looks like a copyvio from segaku.com. Time to go. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This musician has articles in both Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias, indicating a possibility of notability. Nevertheless, neither article offers evidence that the criteria is met. The Japanese article is unsourced, and there appears to be only one source in the Chinese version. If Eriko Kawasaki meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, then it is neither demonstrated nor verified in this article. Looking online myself, I found I could do no better. This could perhaps be moved to draft, but as it stands, this has to be judged as non-notable. MartinJones (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no notable singles or albums charting on Oricon despite having a profile there. [57] [58] Is she associated with any particular idol group? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is associated with 'K-Ble Jungle' but I can't find anything about them in Oricon when entered in English. I don't speak a lick of Japanese so it's possible they exist as the Japanese translation of 'K-Ble Jungle' if indeed that is their Japanese name. However, it doesn't appear that this group has charted either. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the majority of her recent work has been voice acting for anime, or narration for live action television. The Oricon profile listed above has her "appearing" on TV pretty much every week, but it seems it is mostly narration work. Her agency's page ([59]) basically only shows her voice acting and narration work, so one could say the current article is out of date because it only focuses on her (perhaps former) career as a singer. Perhaps those who know voice actors better than I do can speak up. Michitaro (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I think I've found the problem. The article is currently linked to the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia articles on Eriko Kawasaki/川崎恵理子, but I am now pretty sure that is a DIFFERENT person than is introduced in the English article. That person is 44 years old from Saitama and has been a voice actor/narrator for over 20 years. The Oricon profile AngusWOOF introduced covers this person (who has a profile not because she is a singer but because she is a voice performer on some DVDs). The Eriko Kawasaki covered in the article is from Nagasaki and, while her own profile ([60]) does not give her age, she seems to have still been in high school in 2002. She's also living in Italy. So we have to look for information on this person, not the other Eriko Kawasaki. Michitaro (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shaheen Foundation. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Airport Services[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Shaheen Foundation The original AFD, back in 2008 when I assume that the criteria was less stringent (I wasn't around then), this was judged as 'keep, but verify'. After nine long years, it has not yet been verified. No one can say it has not been given time. A merge to its parent company seems appropriate; the only reason I hesitate is because I am unconvinced of the notability of Shaheen Foundation. MartinJones (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The parent article Shaheen Foundation doesn't appear to pass WP:CORPDEPTH either. Ajf773 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TPS Pakistan[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, see the following coverage in refs: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] and others. Mar4d (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just edited the article. Replaced individual company references with newspaper references. Removed previous promotional content as best as I could. Will continue soon as more references become available.---Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from the refs already in the article, here are more: PakObserver & Pakistan Today. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eriko Kawasaki[edit]

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

Twinkle stumbled when I tried this for the first time I think due to including a Japanese link. Anyway- Subject is a musician that does not appear to make WP:MUSICBIO because her albums have not charted nor seems to have a strong fan following. Discography section also looks like a copyvio from segaku.com. Time to go. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This musician has articles in both Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias, indicating a possibility of notability. Nevertheless, neither article offers evidence that the criteria is met. The Japanese article is unsourced, and there appears to be only one source in the Chinese version. If Eriko Kawasaki meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, then it is neither demonstrated nor verified in this article. Looking online myself, I found I could do no better. This could perhaps be moved to draft, but as it stands, this has to be judged as non-notable. MartinJones (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no notable singles or albums charting on Oricon despite having a profile there. [70] [71] Is she associated with any particular idol group? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is associated with 'K-Ble Jungle' but I can't find anything about them in Oricon when entered in English. I don't speak a lick of Japanese so it's possible they exist as the Japanese translation of 'K-Ble Jungle' if indeed that is their Japanese name. However, it doesn't appear that this group has charted either. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the majority of her recent work has been voice acting for anime, or narration for live action television. The Oricon profile listed above has her "appearing" on TV pretty much every week, but it seems it is mostly narration work. Her agency's page ([72]) basically only shows her voice acting and narration work, so one could say the current article is out of date because it only focuses on her (perhaps former) career as a singer. Perhaps those who know voice actors better than I do can speak up. Michitaro (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I think I've found the problem. The article is currently linked to the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia articles on Eriko Kawasaki/川崎恵理子, but I am now pretty sure that is a DIFFERENT person than is introduced in the English article. That person is 44 years old from Saitama and has been a voice actor/narrator for over 20 years. The Oricon profile AngusWOOF introduced covers this person (who has a profile not because she is a singer but because she is a voice performer on some DVDs). The Eriko Kawasaki covered in the article is from Nagasaki and, while her own profile ([73]) does not give her age, she seems to have still been in high school in 2002. She's also living in Italy. So we have to look for information on this person, not the other Eriko Kawasaki. Michitaro (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Mangene[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player. Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. I went through all the sources on the page and all of them are either just listing her name amongst others, are routine sports recaps and transactions which fail WP:ROUTINE. One is literally just her name under a picture indicating it is her in the picture and another is an article about her brother. I did a search through google for any other sources that might be out there and there are none to be found. DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence -- despite the small blizzard of blogsites, namedrops and non-qualifying cites -- that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another of our overly abundant articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wrong forum to discuss a redirect, which seems like an acceptable typo anyway. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson sub-machine gun[edit]

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

misspelt title, redirect page "Thompson sub-machine gun" already exists JMK (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consider speedy delete. Note that the nominator is also the creator of this redirect. The target article should be Thompson submachine gun, this redirect misspells "Thompson" (as Thomson) and has a hyphen that's not in the target. Not sure whether or not this would be an implausible typo, but I don't think it's necessary. PK T(alk) 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should be discussed at WP:RFD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cyberia (video game). MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberia 2: Resurrection[edit]

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

Non-notable software, no independent sources, adequately covered at Cyberia (video game)#Cyberia 2: Resurrection WWGB (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by nom. I can find one review ( [74]) and GameRanking gives a few others that may be offline, but nowhere close to consider GNG being met at this time. There may be more in print (1995 and all that), but I agree that the section in the Cyberia (video game) is completely sufficient but we do want the redirect to that. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Masem as failing WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect This does not need an independent article, unfortunately it does not have the coverage to justify it. It remains, nevertheless, a valid section in an article and a valid search term. MartinJones (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ZXCVBNM. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following Bolton being elected leader of UKIP, there is now a clear consensus to keep and the issue of GNG is resolved by multiple profiles in British press. Keeping this open would serve no purpose. Fences&Windows 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bolton (politician)[edit]

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

Insignificant person with limited, local coverage. Being a political candidate does not make one notable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep As a candidate in the UKIP leadership elections he has frequently made national news recently, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-anti-islam-anne-marie-waters_uk_59a30c70e4b0821444c3eaa1 If he wins the election at the end of this month he will be more notable so the timing of this AfD is not the best. His notability might be better assessed afterwards.Weburbia (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are not notable unless there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" (as per WP:POLITICIAN). If he wins, he would "qualify" for an article. Notability isn't based on future possibility. If he wins, the article can be recreated. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he does not meet any of the notability criteria specific to politicians, but this leads back to the general notability guideline WP:GNG . During the leadership campaign Henry Bolton has already made the news. He is one of the leading candidates and announced a legal challenge against Marie Anne Waters. It has also been reported that Nigel Farage refereed his candidacy and that other MEPs have endorsed him. These matters have been reported in reliable news sources. Whether that qualifies as significant coverage to make him notable at this point is a question of quantity on which we must base our judgement. I think it is worth pointing out that this article has existed for nearly two years and it must be his candidacy in the leadership contest that drew attention to him at this point in time leading to this AfD. There are another three weeks of the election to run and he may make the news again during that time. Pageview statistics for the article have risen dramatically during the campaign showing that people are looking at the page for information because they have seen his name in the press. It would be odd timing and a disservice to Wikipedia users to delete it now. I assume good faith on the part of the proposer but I think some people might think if the page is deleted now, that the action is politically motivated. It would be ironic if that made the papers. It is common sense to wait until after the election before making any decision. Weburbia (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine election coverage doesn't imply notability. Coverage of the leadership election makes the leadership election notable, not the candidates. Some of the other candidates have received significant coverage (such as Waters). Bolton has not. WP:ARTICLEAGE explains how inclusion doesn't imply notability, and notability is the criterion that's important here. When a user who considers an article non-notable nominates it for deletion is immaterial - a subject is either notable or not. Arguing otherwise strikes me as recentism. Ralbegen (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed before, WP:NPOV and good faith should not be presumed on the part of Ralbegen. He was caught vandalising the UKIP Leadership Election Page [75] by assigning non-party colours of his choice to each individual UKIP leadership candidate, despite them all belonging to UKIP. Either show no colours, or the same party colour for all. His subsequent preposterous defence that he had obtained the colours from the candidates' own election material is absurd on grounds of the physics of colour-matching alone. Further, the same colours were deployed on the election webpage for his own political party, the Liberal Democrats, which he also edited. Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delors1991 has since been indefinitely blocked for legal threats. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for party leadership are not notable. His coverage is no more than routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He doesn't inherit notability from the leadership election he's standing in, and he definitely doesn't meet notability criteria in and of himself. Ralbegen (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable: By that token, the webpages for all recent UK Libdem party officers should be deleted. Evidently this Libdem is unable to comprehend:

 "Commander of a multinational strategic intelligence unit in Bosnia
  Head of International Police in Central Croatia
  Liaison officer to the Serbian Internal Security Forces in Kosovo during the war
  Humanitarian crisis management adviser to the Office of the Albanian Prime Minister
  War crimes investigations and exhumations of suspected war crimes victims
  United Nations District Governor and Head of Local Government in Kosovo
  Head of Regional Ceasefire Operations, Skopje, Macedonia
  Strategic Border Management Adviser to the Macedonian government
  Transnational Organised Crime Adviser to the Macedonian Minister of Interior
  Expert Advisor on reform of the Georgian State Border Guard Command and Control
  Head of border strategies, programmes and projects across the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe
  Coalition Stabilisation Leader ('Supported Civilian Commander') for the coalition forces in Musa Qala and Now Zad Districts, Northern Helmand
  EU Common Security & Defence Policy Crisis Response Team, Libya
  Strategic and Operational Planner, EU Common Security & Defence Policy, Brussels
  Head of the EU Crisis Response Team in Ukraine."

Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite He was democratically elected by the party... Like all UK political leaders are. — Calvin999 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others, but there's useful content here that should be merged into UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons listed above. ALPolitico (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for the leadership of a political party are not automatically presumed notable for that fact in and of itself, if they don't have any other notability claim — such as actually having served as an MP in Parliament — alongside that, and the campaign-related coverage itself does not aid passage of WP:GNG since every candidate in the race will always automatically have some. He can be mentioned in the article on the leadership election, certainly, but he needs more than to just be a candidate in the leadership election to qualify for a standalone BLP. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They don't have any other notability claim?" Really, Bearcat? Is your POV [WP:NPOV]-compliant?

  "Commander of a multinational strategic intelligence unit in Bosnia
  Head of International Police in Central Croatia
  Liaison officer to the Serbian Internal Security Forces in Kosovo during the war
  Humanitarian crisis management adviser to the Office of the Albanian Prime Minister
  War crimes investigations and exhumations of suspected war crimes victims
  United Nations District Governor and Head of Local Government in Kosovo
  Head of Regional Ceasefire Operations, Skopje, Macedonia
  Strategic Border Management Adviser to the Macedonian government
  Transnational Organised Crime Adviser to the Macedonian Minister of Interior
  Expert Advisor on reform of the Georgian State Border Guard Command and Control
  Head of border strategies, programmes and projects across the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe
  Coalition Stabilisation Leader ('Supported Civilian Commander') for the coalition forces in Musa Qala and Now Zad Districts, Northern Helmand
  EU Common Security & Defence Policy Crisis Response Team, Libya
  Strategic and Operational Planner, EU Common Security & Defence Policy, Brussels
  Head of the EU Crisis Response Team in Ukraine."

Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep for as long as there's an article on John Rees-Evans. Harfarhs (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harfarhs, that's not how AfD works. If you feel John Rees-Evans should be deleted, you can bring it to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was being facetious. Naturally one cannot literally defend the Bolton article with such a statement as mine. I'm only saying that the rules on BLP articles enumerated earlier in the discussion don't always seem to be held to. Harfarhs (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think an article's subject meets notability criteria, you can bring it to AfD. It's usually not helpful to be facetious, especially on an AfD, as decisions are made on the strengths of arguments rather than the number of people of each opinion! Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep -

  "Commander of a multinational strategic intelligence unit in Bosnia
  Head of International Police in Central Croatia
  Liaison officer to the Serbian Internal Security Forces in Kosovo during the war
  Humanitarian crisis management adviser to the Office of the Albanian Prime Minister
  War crimes investigations and exhumations of suspected war crimes victims
  United Nations District Governor and Head of Local Government in Kosovo
  Head of Regional Ceasefire Operations, Skopje, Macedonia
  Strategic Border Management Adviser to the Macedonian government
  Transnational Organised Crime Adviser to the Macedonian Minister of Interior
  Expert Advisor on reform of the Georgian State Border Guard Command and Control
  Head of border strategies, programmes and projects across the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe
  Coalition Stabilisation Leader ('Supported Civilian Commander') for the coalition forces in Musa Qala and Now Zad Districts, Northern Helmand
  EU Common Security & Defence Policy Crisis Response Team, Libya
  Strategic and Operational Planner, EU Common Security & Defence Policy, Brussels
  Head of the EU Crisis Response Team in Ukraine."

are, except in the view of UKIP's political enemies, in themselves more than sufficient grounds for inclusion. Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, exactly none of those claims are present in the article as written. Secondly, exactly none of them count as notability claims in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — the sourcing present here is entirely in the context of the leadership campaign itself, with not even one source present that's covering him for anything else. So no, you don't get to point one ounce of sarcasm at me for what I said — because what I said was a completely accurate assessment of the article as actually written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment (supporting my earlier keep) The proposer of this AfD described the article as "Insignificant person with limited, local coverage" but things have moved on during the leadership campaign and the article now includes references from The Guardian, Express, Huffington Post, Irish Times and other national news sources. These are not just listing him as a candidate in the leadership election. They provide substantial commentary on differing aspects of his views. These confirm that it was an inopportune moment to have this AfD and he has achieved notability since it was instigated.Weburbia (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a politician is only famous because of standing in an election, then they can be covered under the article for that election. That's the standard approach. All that coverage you mention is about Bolton as a candidate in the leadership election. More broadly, isn't it time we close this AfD? We've got 7 deletes to 3 keeps, of whom one is indef blocked and one explicitly says s/he was being facetious. It's only Weburbia who is left favouring keep: and I do respect your views, Weburbia, but you're clearly in the minority on this one. Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidates such as John Rees-Evans and Anne Marie Waters are also only notable because of their standing in this election and a previous one. There is too much material there to transfer to the election pages and to do so even for one candidate would create an unbalanced article where some candidates have more info about them than others. I don't agree that the other two keeps should be discounted and this is not a vote. Most of the deletes came earlier on before Bolton featured in a number of national news reports so the arguments given may now be obsolete. This AfD should be closed without deletion because the situation is in too much flux for a proper discussion to take place or for a consensus to form. The number of pageviews on the article has increased even more in recent days. A more stable discussion could take place when the dust has settled after the election with enough time passing to know what if any role Bolton will play in UKIP. A new AfD could be raised at that time if notability is still disputed. Weburbia (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a move to delete Waters' article and you can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Marie Waters, and you can see the sort of pre-leadership-contest coverage that ultimately swayed the decision. Possibly the Rees-Evans article should go: but that's not a reason to keep this article, it's an article to delete John Rees-Evans. You are, of course, free to nominate John Rees-Evans for deletion yourself. I agree that it can be sensible in some contexts to wait for an article or events to settle down before nominating it for deletion, but I don't believe Wikipedia should end up having "temporary" articles for all election candidates, which would be the end result of your proposed approach. We have an approach on Wikipedia for elections: if someone isn't previously notable, then we cover them within the election article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the the other pages are a precedent for keeping this page. I know that argument is not valid. I am saying that the argument that content can be moved to the election page is invalid. This is not a temporary page for the election. It has been here since 2015, and yes I know that age is not a justification either. My argument is that concensus cannot be established when notability is changing significantly over the course of the AfD because earlier arguments are now obsolete. The only valid conclusion at this point is therefore "no consensus." Weburbia (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is your approach for elections documented as a Wikipedia policy? If not I don't think it applies. Each case is different.Weburbia (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm editorialising your dispute, but it seems to me that your disagreement comes down to whether election coverage of a candidate counts towards the candidate's notability or the election's notability. All of the references being used are coverage of the election which happens to relate to Bolton, rather than coverage of Bolton that happens to relate to the election – which is what I would consider routine election coverage that doesn't count towards Bolton's meeting notability guidelines, as it's not significant coverage of him as an individual. I hope that makes sense, and I hope I've got the area of divergence right! Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that all the coverage relating to Bolton is election coverage. The article in the Express today was about the proposals regarding the EU army which is a separate current news topic. Bolton's comment was relevant because of his expertise in this field. The fact that he is in a leadership election was of course mentioned simply because it adds colour to the report and elevates his relevance, but that was a side issue to the reports main focus. This shows that his notability has increased beyond the bounds of the election. Weburbia (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of material has now been added into the article by different people since this AfD was started. This includes coverage in both local and national news (BBC, Guardian, Mirror, Express) with detailed quotes on his views. This is not by any means limited to coverage of him as an election candidate. His political views have been sought by national press on topics of border security and military matters because of his expertise in these areas. A significant amount of the coverage predates the present UKIP leadership election. This establishes his notability in line with WP:GNG. I judge the article to be balanced and based on reliable sources. I hope that when this AfD is closed these changes will be taken into account and that it will be noticed that the original rationale and delete requests came before these were done. It would be wrong to conclude a consensus on the basis of these earlier statements. For the record I have never met Henry Bolton and have no involvement in his political campaigns.Weburbia (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:POL says: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Bolton has been touched upon independently in multiple news articles, but not written about in multiple news feature articles. I'm not very interested in pursuing the semantic argument further as I think I've already put across my reasoning, but of the references as they stand as I write this: [1], [3], [5], [8], [13], [16], [17], [24] and [25] could not arguably count towards notability guidelines. [2], [4], [7], [9], [10], [14], [15], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and [26] are routine campaign coverage. That leaves [6], [11], [12] and [27]. Of those, I think several more articles like [11] could be sufficient for notability, the others I don't think count as "significant press coverage" of Bolton, rather coverage of other things which Bolton has provided quotes about. Also: it's entirely clear that you're arguing in good faith: you don't need to explain your distance from the subject! Ralbegen (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you meant WP:NPOL. I would class the references as follows: [11] and [12] call on his expertise as a security expert and so are independent of any election. He has substantial coverage in those articles. [4], [8], [7], [9], [10], [14], [15], [18], [20], [21], [22], [23], [26] are campaigns reports in which Henry Bolton plays an essential role in the story. The rest are routine campaign coverage and sources for supporting information. I make that 15 reports giving him significant press coverage. Five of those are in national press [8], [11], [12], [22], [23]. You appear to be discounting campaign coverage and I disagree about that where he is a major part of the story. I think it is enough to establish notability. It certainly refuted the original position that he is an "Insignificant person with limited, local coverage" but I appreciate that you disagree. Weburbia (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, WP:NPOL. I think I've referenced it as WP:POL on several occasions before — whoops. I don't think that somebody being called on as a subject matter expert in news articles counts as coverage of that person (that would be a vastly too broad inclusion criterion), and that campaign coverage of Bolton is in-depth coverage of the election rather than of Bolton. Still, I think we've identified our impasse and I'm happy to leave it there! Ralbegen (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In my opinion this applies in these news reports referenced. However I agree that this is our impasse and am also happy to leave it at that. Weburbia (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While most coverage is routine, there are enough articles that discuss him that we can verify his existence and that he does what the article says (which is why we have notability criteria). Also, he was the head of a few border organizations (see [76]). Thus, I think that the info in the article is verifiable, making it pass WP:GNG. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 11:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without being the subject of such articles, he just doesn't meet WP:GNG. Routine/passing mentions do not suffice. Ifnord (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG specifically states that he "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" but I would be interested to know which of the references from the article you looked at because in most of them he is not getting just a "routine/passing mention."Weburbia (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I went through all the references I considered a good primary source: "Kent PCC election: Conservative Matthew Scott wins". BBC. 6 May 2016., "Fears refugee children could die in English channel as desperate migrants risk lives in crossings". Mirror. 30 May 2016., "Revealed: the 11 candidates vying to become next Ukip leader". Evening Standard. 4 August 2017., "Ukip risks becoming 'UK Nazi party' if it selects wrong leader". The Guardian. 11 September 2017., "Woman gives birth on Southeastern train arriving at St Pancras... but calls her daughter Victoria". Evening Standard. 16 May 2016. I did not include primarily online news or blogs/twitter/etc. Ifnord (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he just won the UKIP leadership election.^[1] Fouriels (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/913777927799615488

Keep as he's just been announced as UKIP leader. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as he has just been elected leader.--Penbat (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as above. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as he is now leader of UKIP he is clearly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has just been made leader of UKIP, many sites have written articles in the last half hour [77] [78] [79]. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep There is a lot info here which is sourced. He is now the leader of a party which has substantial following in the UK. — Calvin999 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as UKIP leader. Ollie231213 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep based on it being a degree awarding institution and weak deletion nom criteria. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 23:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fontys University of Applied Sciences[edit]

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

This article looks like an ad. It heavily relies on the subject's own websites. Indeed, almost all the footnotes lead to fontys.edu, fontysvenlo.nl and other related sites. Seemingly independent links are either dead or merely bear a passing mention of the subject.

All of this, combined with the fact that it's been developed by an WP:SPA leads me to believe that we're also looking at a breach of the terms of use (the compulsory disclosure clause)

This low quality content is now creeping into other wikis, by using this article as a blueprint (or even via automatic translation) with efforts from other WP:SPAs. - Andrei (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited universities are generally notable. WP:PROMO and WP:SPA are not valid reasons for deletion. Terms of use breaches can result in speedy deletion of content once proven. however it has not been proved, so this is not a factor. AfD is not cleanup. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aguyintobooks – Editør (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brivius de Brokles#Other family members. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Fortunato Brivio[edit]

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

Member of an important family and someone's mother - no sense of any notability in her own right. A redirect to the family would make sense, but nothing here justifies a stand-alone article. Was nominated for CSD A7 but this was removed with "decline A7, associated with notable people", which does not seem to me to "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". PamD 06:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brivius de Brokles#Other family members The subject does not meet the notability criteria, yet she remains a possible search term and information on her is contained elsewhere on Wikipedia. MartinJones (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously redirect -- She was completely NN in her own right, so that a redirect (rather than deletion) is the appropriate course of action. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 X Factor (Denmark season 3). Consensus to redirect per the discussion. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 23:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tine Velvet[edit]

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

Minor celebrity, has done nothing since runner-up in a talent quest, fails WP:MUSICBIO, contested prod WWGB (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 3). I was unsuccessful in my attempt to verify notability for this singer, but she is still likely to be searched for on Wikipedia, and the X Factor article is the most appropriate place to direct readers to. MartinJones (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above; plausible search term. I can't find the necessary coverage to warrant a standalone article. gongshow talk 23:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Bartels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous Afd failed because nobody bothered to lvote, but the rationale remains the same: having an asteroid named after you doesn't make you notable. Fails GNG and BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. Insufficient material to ground a reliable article in. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that the subject of this article meets notability criteria (WP:BIO). Deli nk (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Collyns[edit]

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

Not notable not well referenced Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Lacks WP:CS fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO--EC Racing (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Alan Prince[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional. Self referential Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too promotional to be worth keeping; the notability is marginal, if any. I'm not able to locate significant RS coverage that discusses the topic directly and in detail. The article's creator has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts; pls also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frogg92477. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO looks to be written as WP:PROMO with possible WP:COI--EC Racing (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í consultation[edit]

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

As a subject, not notable enough for its own article. Only two pages link here, and they are both Baha'i pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument could be made for 90% of the articles relating to the Bahá'í Faith. Few of the articles in that subject category utilize any resources beyond those found in polemic literature of the religion. Regards, A35821361 (talk)

Makes sense to delete to me, there isn't much literature expounding on what Baha'i Consultation is outside of primary sources as of yet. Personally I hope that changes in the future, but for now this could be a paragraph on another page. It also isn't a well written article currently. A35821361 do you have any thoughts about this article? penultimate_supper (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no obvious discussion involving guidelines so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say a line or three could be added to Bahá'í teachings but as a whole yes this article should be deleted. Smkolins (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agnes Sligh Turnbull. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Richlands[edit]

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

I don't know if the Kirkus entry[80] actually counts as a review, and even if it does, that's all I could find, and that's not enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (copyvio - not quite G12) and Redirect to Agnes Sligh Turnbull as {{R from work}}: Wouldn't count the Kirkus capsule review, or a handful of capsule reviews ([81][82][83], etc) which lean heavily on the Publisher's Weekly blurb, however PW has a longer review. There's also an unverified Pittsburgh Press review, and worldcat shows 8 editions (plus there's an audio version) and 515 library holdings. With what's indicated, I don't think it's reached a weak keep. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I concur with my fellow editors above. MartinJones (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Records[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately. Record labels should be inherently notable imho :) but, tis not to be. A WP:BEFORE search (in news outlets and the literature) indicates a lack of in-depth or persistent coverage in third-party reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:ORGCRIT. — fortunavelut luna 09:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning delete. This kills me, of course. There is a listing for Cherokee Records [www.globaldogproductions.info/c/cherokee.html] at Global Dog Productions (one of the three "legacy" numerical discographies) which to me indicates notability. That said, a search on Billboard shows there were several Cherokee records from around the same time period, one in Ohio, one in Nevada, and an unrelated one from 1952 but I can't determine its location. Looking at the GlobalDog listing, there are a number of notable artists, and several issues but, I believe this listing combines several unrelated labels of the same name, and only the 500 series is the label pertinent to this discussion, which would indicate perhaps only three singles were issued. The only reference I can find that truly satisfies WP:V is "Cherokee+Records". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Davis School District. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Layton Junior High School[edit]

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

Per WP:N Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a JUNIOR HIGH school. Grades 7-9.Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 03:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally say either Delete or Merge with Davis School District. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article contains plenty of information and is notable by virtue of being a school, a place that has a notable effect on thousands of people in a community.Egaoblai (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable middle school. Schools are not inherently notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Davis School District. Per WP:SCH/AG#N and by the long-standing precedent illustrated by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, that is what we do with middle and elementary schools. Frankly, that could have been done WP:BOLDly. Pinging onel5969 and Bobherry to confirm that would be a satisfactory outcome in their view. This is obviously an essay written by a 7th grader, not m an encyclopedia article. No secondary sourcing at all. John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree 100% John from Idegon Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the school district, in this case Davis School District as is almost always the practice for schools less-than-high-school level. This is documented at WP:SCH/AG#N, by the long-standing precedent illustrated by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and evidenced by 2,537 entries (as of this moment) in the redirect from schools category Jacona (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Davis School District as many have said. There is clear precedent for it. MysterKitty (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. MartinJones (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Rosenstrauch[edit]

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

I'm unable to locate enough independent coverage of this subject to meet WP:GNG. Much of this entry details things that we don't generally consider significant for WP:PROF purposes. She got some funding for cardiovascular research but I don't think her citation record gets her to notability; she chaired one scientific session for an international conference; she has a consulting company but there's no significant coverage of it; and she was made a Fellow of the American Heart Association but that seems to be less of a distinction than fellowship in other scientific societies. As always, I'm happy to withdraw if more can be turned up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (provisional). Tiny GS citations for a very highly cited field gives doubts about WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consider publications as well as citations and re-evaluate Jesse Russell et al., 2013 Transmedia, Bookvika publishing, Paperback, “Doreen Rosenstrauch“, Pages:164, SUPC: SDL444291104, ISBN: 9785510954982 ISBN 9785510954982 - Doreen Rosenstrauch Direct Textbook

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Doyle (writer)[edit]

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

A whole lot of life history and resume about a non-notable author. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author, marketeer, amateur golfer and driving charity trustee.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just not sufficient WP:SIGCOV for this overstuffed PROMO. Note that source #5 article, described as a WSJ article, leads nowhere, so I searched the WSJ for "Charles Doyle" and got three hits, none about this Charles Doyle. Source # 10, The Guardian is an op-ed he wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feelings (Aliki book)[edit]

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

No books by Aliki Brandenberg have articles and a children's book with no references and just a list of contents for an article is not convincing as an article Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided, and the contents list and trivia that make up most of this article are not going to be useful to Wikipedia readers unless they have the book Feelings in their hands as they read this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the article now has sources thanks to the efforts of User:Megalibrarygirl. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why library holdings can be a good indication of possible notability only, according to WorldCat this book is held by 1400 libraries, so i was surprised by the dearth of reviews online or otherwise, curious that article creator chose this Aliki book and not one of the others that do have reviews (allbeit tradies:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote the article. Finding reviews for books from the 1980s is daunting. There's several reviews and of course, the Reading Rainbow episode. @Metropolitan90 and Coolabahapple: to see what you think. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the rewrite, I'll withdraw. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great rescue job Megalibrarygirl, article now reflects this book meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK so this is definitely a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mohammed Raza[edit]

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

Non-notable "Astro-Gemmologist" lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Verges on advertisement. Insufficient referencing. reddogsix (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on first look this guy seems to be notable in India. I'm not saying I couldn't change my mind on this, but he's on television (probably millions of infomercial type shows), and he's been talked about in the The Moroccan Times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When making this article (after a request by a COI editor on IRC), I included enough sources to support the main article. This personage has received over 200 awards, with several reliable sources calling him "India's top astro-gemogolist" . For convenience, I have concentrated on English sources, although their are significantly more in some Indian language. As an aside, I don't appreciate the article being CSD tagged within 15 minutes and the influx of random templates the nom put on my talk page afterward. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Landmine[edit]

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

The article does not provide any sources to establish the subject's notability (either WP:NMILITARY or WP:GNG). A search of the subject has not revealed any significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. The references provided are merely mentions in passing, particularly Ref [3], and do not establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a notable figure of the SriLankan civil war. I would allow more time for the article to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea Cucumber 17 (talk • contribs) — Sea Cucumber 17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not about an individual but about a military product. Given the Sri Lankan civil war concluded a number of years ago and to date there are very few reliable references that even mention this type of land mine it is unlikely that the article will be improved now or into the future.Dan arndt (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that editor needed to make a couple of edits to attempt to gain some authority. BMK struck their vote righteously. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written, indeed. Probably should be renamed to Joni 95. In addition to sourcing in the article, the following sources also emergeed in a BEFORE - [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. Military kit is typically notable if sourced, and this one is. Not averse to merge if there is an appropriate page covering Tamil Tiger mines (Note we have Rangan 99 which is the Joni 99 - and is a copy of a Pakistani mine - but they are quite different technically).Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Icewhiz .This is sourced and further this landmine was used extensively during 26 year Sri Lankan Civil War.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, as Icewhiz points out, the subject does pass WP:V and passing WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is clearly a matter of cleanup. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, as Icewhiz states. Poorly written as noted, but that is not a reason to delete. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Rebuilding Life[edit]

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

Promotional article for Local organization,no general notability DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to pass GNG. Sources in article aren't great. Sourcing in BEFORE isn't much. For whatever reason the sole google-news hits for this (2) are in Chinese - [92] [93].Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a worthy charity from what's in the article, but the article also doesn't contain sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that this organisation meets WP:ORG and I note the results of Icewhiz's search above. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Icewhiz; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are more sources out there. Google-news can doesn't always pick up smaller media outlets. There also seems to be international scope with their medical care for victims of combat. Thenigmachine (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, it could use more sourcing, but they seem to be partnered with a number of recognized non-profits. While they do not have the biggest name recognition, their mission is large. M1c4a3l (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SBFZ Spotting[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, thus making the information not of too high verifiablity. Thus, the article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 10:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG say no more!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. So Why 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MC Primo[edit]

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

His death received very little coverage for a short period of time (WP:NOTTEMP/WP:NOTNEWS), it's only a WP:ROTM crime news. The sources barely say something about his career. As a singer he does not seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO and as a politician he was not even elected as an alderman. Carlinho Teves (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Carlinho Teves (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Carlinho Teves (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Carlinho Teves (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as here Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, there are some reliable sources, such as Record (R7) and Globo (G1), but as a popular artist he did not seem to be that popular. And he was a singer of funk carioca, which in Brazil is usually very popular, but among the singers of Funk carioca, he did not have a significant coverage which a really popular artist would. Using a similar example of WP:GHITS: "The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X; the redirects for discussion process, unlike articles for deletion, will often hinge on matters such as plausibility and numbers of search engine results." Carlinho Teves (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the person appears not to be extremely famous the sources provide seem to suffice in providing proof of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea Cucumber 17 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Indeffed as sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese two days ago. It was an unanimous consensus among Brazilian editors that the article should be deleted. The reasons presented there were the same that were presente here. Carlinho Teves (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user who created the article is blocked for sockpuppetry and cross-wiki abuse (meta:Special:CentralAuth/Dele T). Carlinho Teves (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is this passes WP:GNG and there were no policy based rationales for the delete votes. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 22:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Unity Bridge[edit]

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

Not a notable bridge. Media coverage is paltry to non-existence of the 'News of the Weird' variety. Fails to be notable. jps (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this stub while expanding the Mother of All Rallies article, after doing a quick Google search and finding several articles about the trailer. From what I can tell, this vehicle's journey is actually being chronicled somewhat closely, with a few incidents happening along the way. The subject may very well be notable, but I admit, more research is needed here. The article was nominated for deletion very soon after being created, and is not at its fullest potential. I ask discussion participants to please keep this in mind before commenting. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Mother of All Rallies if it is deemed worthy there. Guy drives around a Trump-emblazoned truck, gets a whiff of press that fades. Not worthy of a separate article. TheValeyard (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly non-notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and confusing. How is this a bridge? Legacypac (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legacypac: The article may be confusing, but this just means there is work to be done to improve the prose and clarify the subject. Simple Google searching yields many, many sources that could be used to expand this stub. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sustained coverage in RSes establishes GNG notability. A simple web search for "Trump bridge Cortis" turns up examples well before and continuing after Mother of All Rallies (M.O.A.R.): from WUSA January 18, to Cedar Rapids Gazette August 19, to Detroit News, September 18.

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

Above !votes "press that fades" "clearly non-notable" and "confusing" are merely personal opinions and are factually untrue and/or not policy based reasons to delete. I might consider merging if a) a policy based reason were put forward and b) RSes about this subject post M.O.A.R. can't be found. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bri here. "Press that fades" and "confusing" are personal opinions and not policy-based reasons for deletion. No doubt the article needs work and further expanding, but this discussion needs to be based on sourcing and not the current state of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer: article creator). I'm formally casting my vote to keep this article, per WP:GNG. This may just be a man driving a truck, but his journey has received sufficient news coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article. His path has been closely followed, and sources describe the truck's appearances at multiple notable events, as well as incidents that have happened along the way. Redirecting to Mother of All Rallies is not appropriate, as this was just one of many appearances. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is plenty notable. If the article needs work, fine, but it needs to stay. Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above and the assurances of the page's creator that the page will be expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Pro-Trump Demonstrations; there is some coverage, but topic is not encyclopedia and coverage/notability is marginal for a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of coverage and sources seem fine, and will only grow. This is a mobile work of art, and if it stays intact and continues making the rounds for four years it could probably end up in the presidential library (gold-plated presidential library with fountains and peacocks and a shoe-hall), so its notability has been established and will gain in time. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to comment on redirecting Pro-Trump demonstrations, then I'll try not to chime in here again. IMO, voting to redirect to this article is not taking into account that the article is majorly underdeveloped. There have been many pro-Trump demonstrations that need to be added, and merging details from multiple articles like March 4 Trump, Mother of All Rallies, and Trump Unity Bridge is not practical, as the article would become too long very quickly. I've even started Trump Free Speech Rally, which is yet another notable pro-Trump event, and Patriot Prayer has organized other rallies in support of the president. In short, I'm asking discussion participants to consider the potential of these standalone articles and not just the current Trump Unity Bridge and Pro-Trump demonstrations articles. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pro-Trump Demonstrations per Gregory. Jdcomix (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is well-sourced, and there has been reliably-sourced coverage of this float for about a year already -- there is too much coverage for too long a time span to convince me that this article's subject is not notable. Besides, this article's creator is a very experienced editor, with numoerus FAs and GAs listed on his user page, and I thus have faith that he will expand and improve the article (and it is already a decent article). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG, qualifying for a standalone article per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clearly to delete, however I am happy to provide a copy if anyone wants to make a (very) selective merge to main. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings[edit]

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

Another non-encyclopedic quote farm threaded together by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please recognize this: the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings is without a doubt notable; dozens of leaders saying basically the same thing -- not so much if we choose to follow WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED. If possible, keep your "but there is precedent" comments to a minimum. Precedent to keep poorly-constructed quote farms is not one I, or anyone, should like to follow. Instead, give me policy, or give me death! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The actual article rather nicely, and more importantly, academically summarizes the response to the attack in a well-constructed paragraph: "The attack also sparked condemnation and expressions of condolence from numerous governments and heads of state, as well as international bodies such as NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union who also condemned the attacks and/or expressed condolences to the victims' families".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep TGS is not following proper channel. This should be discussed as a merger rather than as a AfD. I don't know why you are using your all energies to delete or minimize the terrorism related information. These are reactions to one of the notable terrorism act done in the recent history. The article only need a decent prose which we can add if we stop wasting our time on these kind of AfDs. Greenbörg (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbörg if you are not going to bother to read my rationale, why do you feel obligated to cast a vote? As I already stated, the attack is without a doubt notable. That does not mean quotes saying the same thing are, and I applied the appropriate policies to make that point. "Decent prose" does not make this any more than an indiscriminate collection loosely conjoined together by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on 2010 Moscow Metro bombings - this article already has a sub-heading on reactions to the event. Vorbee (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep TGS is not following proper channel.AfD is not to be used as a merg discussion. Those discussions are held at the talk page. I see no reason for deletion or merge anyway. Good sources. Article is informativeBabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ I never proposed merging this article, once. You obviously did not read my rationale or the corresponding policies I selected to construct my statement. Perhaps you will benefit from reading WP:ATA.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to vote merge, you should say so, Afd's can legitimately result in a merge or redirect and often do so. The nom has made valid points about indiscriminate and WP:NOTINHERITED, I seriously doubt there is significant coverage of the coverage of a terror incident which does not focus on the terror incident, but infact focuses on the reaction. Nor do I see why the event should be split over several articles. This article is well constructed with the little flags, but ultimately seems pointless. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information, not relevant to the readers. The article mostly consists of republished press releases such as "...strongly condemned the blasts and offered his condolences..." etc. etc. What were these entities supposed to do, endorse the terror attack? (In any case, if any org did happen to praise the bombing, this occurrence would be notable enough to include into the main article.) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it represents a new type of article for Wikipedia and delves into the realm of Wikiquote, I think it still meets an encyclopedic need, and I would like to see the equivalent for other events. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) what is that encyclopedic need? Several quotes that say essentially the same thing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that this is a "new type of article for Wikipedia". See Category:Reactions to 2000s events and Category:Reactions to 2010s events. However, a number of those other reaction articles have been controversial at AfD due to the fact that they often go into long lists of countries with government officials from each country condemning the attack and offering condolences to the victims, which some editors including myself find unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, both of which resulted in "no consensus" results. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took the effort to actually read the contents of this article (OK, I lie, I stopped halfway as life is too short) and haven't found a single statement that was not WP:ROUTINE WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:PRIMARY condemnation of the act, expression of solidarity with Russian people, or determination to continue anti-terrorist campaign. I don't think the readers will be too disappointed by eventual deletion of this article either... all 1219 of them in 2016 (hard to tell how many of them made it to the end of the article). No such user (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep it is notable to the IR students as the other such articles. This is after all an encyclopaedia for students everywhere, not just editors. we update this for the world at large, not just us. It si important to nore who sad what NOT who said!Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas...what? Care to rephrase or apply a policy so I can understand your argument for keeping this quote farm?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Words of NOTABLE people indicate to IR (international relations) students indicative of what policy is in their Masters programs (I was in the conflict studies programme at UCD and did a course, with getting an A+, under Gerard Casey (philosopher) (who has a WP page)), but I am aware of what poli sci colleagus did). it is important of who said what and not what was said. they use it for their masters theses.
First day lecture started with writing on the board "states are criminal organisations"[94] (fun weekly responses to the readings...and his responses) (we were 2/4 of anarcho-capitalists on campus)...that said Ive also worked with Walid Phares who is a neocon at FDD (See WP history in June 2007 at the page...propaganda it was (but I had moved to biz development except Monday cataloguing weekly media appearances)).Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure glad I am not on your course... I cannot quite understand why these masters degree political science students (I study law btw) would be using Wikipedia as a source, nor why this article is of any use to normal people, who are not writing a thesis. Unless I am mistaken, there are journals and newspapers which follow the political position of particular parties and personages, perhaps you could use those. Regarding your assertion of "This is after all an encyclopedia for students everywhere" I think you are getting us confused with Wikiversity. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - These articles are becoming popular solutions to the issue of long quote-farm reactions usually presented in the respective main articles. Instead, however, these articles just present that issue within themselves. As it is, these articles are not encyclopedic in themselves per the arguments of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and quotes should not dominate an article. I am baffled by a couple !votes up above as AfD is a perfectly legitimate forum for this discussion. If you think merge or redirect is a superior solution to deletion, then you should say so in your !vote. I'm okay with a merge happening if anything of use can be transferred, more importantly though, I think this page should be left as a redirect as has been done with articles such as Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack and Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack. There is a lot of material hidden inside the revisions to the page, some of it may become of use later on, if not now. Besides, redirects are cheap. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the alternative would be death to the Slick, which no one wants. Quote lists like these belong in Almanacs, not in Encyclopedias. Selective merges and redirects per ATD are quite allright with me. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is adequately covered in the main article: "The attack also sparked condemnation and expressions of condolence from numerous governments and heads of state, as well as international bodies such as NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union who also condemned the attacks and/or expressed condolences to the victims' families." We are not a quotation aggregator or a newspaper. Sandstein 10:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Powerhouse Films releases[edit]

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

Fails WP:CATALOG. No evidence of notability. All links are to the company's own website. --wooden superman 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about Powerhouse Films as far as I can tell. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Metropolitan90. WP:NOTCATALOG. Ajf773 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that per the discussion herein, if renominated for deletion at AfD in the future, these articles should likely be nominated separately. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bspwm[edit]

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

They don't have notability and reliable sources, also relies too much on references to primary sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AmiWm. No opinion yet on the others. AmiWm has coverage in both Linux and Amiga magazines, I will add some references to the article, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Comparison of X window managers might work as a redirection target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entries in one table should have aricle. Editor-1 (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Surely some of these are more notable than others. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shouldn´t be problem to find some RS coverage at least for the older of them (Google books previews show at least few paragraphs in books about Linux for entries I tried). However, adding these sources to respective articles is another problem. 12 articles (well 11, as I somewhat improved AmiWM) about topic I don´t care is too much for my taste. On the other hand deleting this part of computer history seems to be too harsh solution. Pavlor (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not convinced they should all be judged together, it is easy to make mistakes that way. They are similar but not exactly the same. MartinJones (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick search affirms QVWM has references in assorted texts pertaining to Linux / Linux desktop administration, as well on relevant publications such as Linux Today. It's well-noted as an early Windows clone desktop environment, and a far cry from twm derivatives and tiling window managers on the list, which regardless of notability are far from 'similar' beyond the '-wm' suffix. 199.76.70.18 (talk)

Comment I'd be willing to bring these articles up to speed, with respect to reliable sources, but I need to know some decent sources. DuckDuckGo searching bspwm returns Reddit, a bspwm for dummies guide that looks more instructive than useful for encyclopaedic information, an ArchWiki article, its GitHub repo and several pages that belong to Q & A websites, the Manjaro bspwm spin, YouTube and bspwm packages. If someone has some decent sources I'd be happy to bring the bspwm and other articles up to speed. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 15:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each piece of software should really be judged separately. Many are suitable for redirect (WP:ATD-R) and merger, as preferable to deletion. (Feel free to be bold and find redirect targets on your own.) czar 03:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hickman[edit]

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

Subject is not notorious. Notoriety claims are based on low-quality news spam. Article created by subject's father. Eastade (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls foul of WP:COI, WP:1E and sourcing requirements. Congratulations on your achievements, Ryan, but unfortunately this does not meet the relevant criteria for biographies of living people. MartinJones (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Mis-use of Twinkle to nominate this page after it was turned into a redirect. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 UEFA Nations League[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Clearly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to assume this tournament will occur in this form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Andy Smith (programmer). There is a majority in favor of deletion, which could barely be interpreted as a consensus, but there is also a reasonable argument for the possibility that this article could be improved. I have moved it to draft space, where it can be further improved, and submitted through the draft review process for restoration to mainspace. If it is abandoned, or not sufficiently improved, it will eventually be deleted automatically. bd2412 T 21:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy Smith (programmer)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are single line mentions, lack independence, or do not mention article subject. CSD was removed without cause or explanation. reddogsix (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not convinced subject meets WP:GNG. PureRED | talk to me | 18:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Updating vote per additional sources. Subject is the cofounder of OpenStack, which lends some notability. PureRED | talk to me | 18:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this extensive article on the history of OpenStack is quite telling, saying "OpenStack has many founders across NASA, Rackspace, and beyond" and only referring to Smith in passing in one sentence, "They hacked through the weekend at HouseKu, another collaborative group house in San Francisco where a NASA contractor named Andy Smith lived." This is not the stuff of notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable computer programmer and contributor to the global open-source movement: article updated to include notable details and citations*

Updates were made 05:41, 15 September 2017‎. The article Andy Smith (programmer), when it was reviewed, was missing essential details and citations highlighting the individual's notability. Please review the updates to confirm the individual's notability and the value of this article's addition to Wikipedia. Further details and citations have yet to be added, but those indicating the individual's significance are now included. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthr0pologist (talk • contribs)

I find it very tiresome that articles about anything or anyone connected to computing seem to be judged by far lower standards than those that we apply to other topics. Where are the genuine reliable sources outside republishers of press releases and the mutually backscratching walled garden of tech web sites? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks WP:BIO needs to WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly cites sources, so I'm not sure what you mean by linking to that page. My issue is that the sources cited are all either derived from press releases or are in trade publications, which we do not accept as evidence of notability for, say, plumbers or bankers, so we shouldn't accept them for computer programmers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : reliable sources, notable software architect, ongoing global influence. Sources cited include Reuters, Quartz, Wired, The Economist, BusinessWire, VentureBeat, TechCrunch, The Next Web. It’s important to highlight the distinction between “anything or anyone connected to computing” (quoted from the above comment) and the influence Smith has had through his projects. In the case of oAuth - continues to be used by upwards of a billion people. In the case of BarCamp and the unconferences based on BarCamp - his influence has reached the hundreds of thousands who’ve attended these events over the years. In the case of OpenStack - 80,000+ programmers globally continue to contribute to and grow the project 7 years after its inception in 2010, and the infrastructure of listed companies like Dell, HP, IBM, etc, rely on it. It also may be worth noting that these accomplishments were happening from 2005 when there was considerably less interest in tech from mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthr0pologist (talk • contribs)

On the face of it the most impressive of the sources that you listed there is The Economist, so let's take a look at it. Andy Smith isn't even mentioned in this article. Please show us some real independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Smith rather than this collection of press releases, passing mentions and non-mentions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my sourcing concerns above. The more I look the less notable the subject seems. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (duplicate !vote stricken) Pointing to the significance of this individual's works: the Wikipedia community deems three of Smith's works of significance. This community created, contributes to and frequently updates the pages documenting Smith’s works.

The OpenStack open-source technology and non-profit foundation, the oAuth technology and the widely-adopted BarCamp event format each have their own ongoing global significance: oAuth is used by upwards of a billion users of the most-used social media sites, FTSE 100 companies rely heavily on OpenStack and oAuth, OpenStack has a thriving community of 80,000+ engineers contributing to its open-source projects, each of these three initiatives engages actively-contributing communities on almost every continent, they all have longevity - continued growth since Smith co-founded/co-authored them 7-12 years ago.
Wikipedians have been contributing to and maintaining the pages for BarCamp, oAuth and OpenStack since 2005, 2007 and 2010 respectively.
In response to the earlier comment: the inclusion of the 2012 Economist citation indicates the far-reaching societal and political impact of BarCamp -- and thus, supports the notability of the individual - having co-founded BarCamp. Other citations are offered as evidence of Smith's role in creating the aforementioned projects.
If it's judged that, of OpenStack, oAuth and BarCamp, any of these is indeed significant enough to be documented on Wikipedia, the question is around whether it’s in the interest of Wikipedia’s users to be allowed to find information about the creators of these works here.
Exiting this discussion due to time constraints, although continuing to research this era of the social web. No doubt whatever decision results from this discussion, it will be well-considered and in the interest of Wikipedia’s users. Thanks to all contributors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthr0pologist (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. Before doing so though, consider merging to Puppy Linux or a list of Puppy Linux based distributions. So Why 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimPup Linux[edit]

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

Not notable, less than 2000 search results on Google, also reads very promotional. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. It was a very popular distribution in the Puppy Linux community during its time. It was one of the few Crunchbang-styled Puppy-based operating systems with some interesting goals behind it. The sourceforge page has well over 20k downloads. - Ovine1 ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovine1: It appears that you have just forged my signature because it still links to my contribs and logs page, please read WP:SIGFORGE and change your signature, regards. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A single google search isn't a particularly good rationale for a WP:AFD nomination. I don't see anything wrong with the article, with two readings. As a historical article of an older type of Linux distribution, it well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not only cite a Google search, your vote did not address the issue of notability that I also address in my deletion rationale, if you have any evidence to the contrary, please state that. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Champion, That is what you said in the AFD rationale above. less than 2000 search results and it reads like a WP:PROMO. It is not promotional, after two reads, and as a historical article on a Linux distribution, at a time, when many of these types of distros were being created for very specific and niche requirements, in an early and busy period of Linux history, clearly provides historical context, and I think is good encyclopedic knowledge. You don't see the value in it, nor the enormous creative effort it takes to make these things. It is off historical value, and worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Saying that the article possesses "historical value" is not a reason against deletion, whether this has any so-called "value" of any kind is a matter of personal opinion and nothing else in this case as that is not discussed in RS. You did not explain why it is notable, and the only mentions I could find were trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources, hence this is an obvious WP:GNG fail, it also fails the criteria listed at WP:NSOFT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its you that doesn't want to take on the arguments that I'm putting forward. The whole purpose of knowledge is to provide history, which is the whole purpose of WP and this article provides it. It is solid encyclopedic knowledge, and easily passes WP:GNG. WP:NSOFT isn't a formal WP policy. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 8 September 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)}}} 05:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep feature synthesis[edit]

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

This article is a rehashing of a research paper. The paper doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of a couple of stories based on press releases, e.g., [95], I don't see any in-depth reliable sources independent of the group that created this algorithm. Hence the article as is stands is original research and not (yet) verifiable. As this is a relatively new algorithm (2015), this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hence, delete with no prejudice to re-creation if multiple independent RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, though could well be promising. Only one paper on it so far, on a graduate student's research and published in a conference proceedings. Picked up in the news from the press releases that accompany such conferences. Needs secondary sources that compare it in depth to the many others working in this area. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose Anthology[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES. Not yet released. The previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rose Anthology (TV Series) was closed as "speedy delete". GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still just as WP:TOOSOON as it was half a month ago. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above; no updates on this potential series since the original announcement last month. gongshow talk 02:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that there are insufficient WP:RS to pass WP:BIO.

A sub-thread explored the more general topic of paid editing. This is obviously still a topic the community is grappling with, but our current policy only requires that paid editing be disclosed, and that requirement was met.

There was a suggestion to create a new Zedan family article and repurpose some of the content from here into that, but no support for that idea emerged. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amr bin Fareed bin Mohammed bin Zedan (Amr F. Zedan)[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. The cited sources are about polo, the company he inherited from his father, or his father, and he is only mentioned in passing. Promotional article, created by a paid WP:SPA (declared on talkpage). Edwardx (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please --@Edwardx:, did you mean to assert that the main article contributor has lapsed from WP:PAID? If so could you please be specific about where and when they lapsed from th the PAID policy?

Yes, we should have a policy on paid contributions -- which the main contributor seems to have made a good faith attempt to comply with. I suggest that, if you CAN'T explain how their contributions lapsed from policy you overstrike that portion of your nomination.

Personally, I could agree with a PAID policy with restrictions that were harder to measure up to. However, I expect my fellow contributors to measure up to the policies we have, not the policies I would like us to have. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I'm not seeking to suggest that the article creator has failed to comply with WP:PAID, merely that it being a paid-for article is something one might consider as a factor in decision making, particularly if one was on the keep/delete fence. As always, the matter of "independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources" should remain paramount. Edwardx (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above, if the main contributor has complied with PAID, as I am satisfied the article cites enough RS to establish notability. Johnpacklambert called bin Fareed a "non-notable businessman". As above, deletion is supposed to be based on policy criteria, not our gut feelings.

We might have a gut feeling that a foreign businessman, we never heard of, couldn't possibly measure up to our policy's inclusion criteria. But, when the article cites multiple references, shouldn't a "delete" comment specifically lay out why we discount those references? Geo Swan (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is whether we should Wikipedia:Assume good faith as to those being "independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources" when they have been added by a paid or COI editor, particularly in a foreign language with an unfamiliar script, like Arabic. Alas, beyond the numbers, I cannot read Arabic. Edwardx (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and repurpose to a new article on the Zedan family, wghuch has many notable members. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guides quoted above, not because of any editor's status as a paid contributor, WP:ADHOM. Ifnord (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this passes WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 22:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Vu[edit]

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

Minimal notability; the article is created and edited by SPAs that shills for Vu, and while she has won some awards she has zero coverage outside that and it's not clear how notable those awards are (eg Canadian Authors Association seems itself to have been the work of a shill). Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To question the importance of literary awards by Canada's largest and oldest writers' association demonstrates a clear absence of knowledge about the Canadian literary scene. Unfortunately, Pinkbeast has made several edits that have factually changed the nature and importance of the author's work, demonstrating a total unfamiliarity with this author. Unfamiliarity by one Wikipedia user with an author does not equate minimal notability. On several occasions, I have had to revert erroroneous changes. The Caroline Vu article has been identified by Wikipedia a "stub" article to which Wikipedia contributors have been specifically invited to expand on. Yet, each effort to expand the article to properly inform Wikipedia readers about the subject of this article has been countered in a matter of seconds by Pinkbeast. Pinkbeast has demonstrated a very weak understanding of literary genre, making the argument that a novel cannot be of creative non-fiction (Please see Wikipedia's own article on the Non-Fiction Novel ^[1] that demonstrates the absurdity of that allegation). Caroline Vu's notability is rising on both the English and French (through her translated novels) literary scenes in Canada. She has received a full page news coverage in the Montreal Gazette,^[2] one of Canada's leading English newspapers. In the last two weeks, her work has been highlighted on a major TV station, in a major Canadian magazine (Châtelaine)^[3] and in Montreal's largest circulation newspaper (le Journal de Montréal).^[4] She is also in the running for another literary award for short fiction, this time a British award (decision to be announced in October 2017). Citations for this notable news coverage and literary acclaim for the author's work appear in the article. While this author is not yet Margaret Atwood, she is an active writer with a very promising career ahead of her and is certainly notable enough to merit a good factual article in Wikipedia.Literary Muse (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fiction_novel
^ Cite news|url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/books/caroline-vu-that-summer-in-provincetown-digs-deep-into-a-vietnamese-familys-past
^ Cite news|url=http://fr.chatelaine.com/opinions/irma-le-poids-des-souvenirs-emportes/
^ Cite news|url=http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/09/16/une-odyssee-chargee-dhumanite

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has some press, although not sure how reliable source-ish these all are.[96][97][98][99][100] And briefer.[101][102] Although her first novel was basically self-published it still got some press and award noms. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. This does need a major scrubdown for neutrality issues and referencing improvement, but there are credible notability claims here — even if there are problems with the Canadian Authors Association's article, it is a fundamentally notable organization whose awards do count for something toward WP:AUTHOR, as is the Quebec Writers' Federation. Literary Muse has a declared conflict of interest, however — they have declared themselves in past edit summaries as knowing Caroline Vu personally, which means that they do not have any right to convert the article into Caroline Vu's own preferred public relations version. For example, the past attempts to remove the source for who she was formerly married to were entirely inappropriate, as there was no valid reason given for the removal — the article's tone and content, and what sources are or are not permissible in it, are our decision to make according to our rules, not Caroline Vu's or Literary Muse's. I've made some adjustments to the article to improve the sourcing and remove the most advertorialized content — any award nomination that we can't source to media coverage about the award's shortlist, but exclusively to the award's own self-published content about itself, is an award about which Wikipedia cares not a whit — but there's enough here to keep as long as we neutralize it and keep the sourcing clean. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess with what Colapeninsula has found I can't argue against keep. Thank you for your eye on the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards and reviews together might constitute significant critical attention per WP:AUTHOR, and pretty clearly get her over the WP:GNG bar. Article has been cleaned up and presents no major NPOV or referencing problems. FourViolas (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Allen[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence for notability. We have an article on the phone, DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism and no indications of being notable either as an entrepreneur or an author. Article cited to primary sources, passing mentions or other sources unsuitable for establishing notability. My searches do not turn up anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are really about the company and its products, not the CEO. I don't see the necessary independent coverage of the individual to establish notability. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/913777927799615488

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fiction_novel

[3] Cite news|url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/books/caroline-vu-that-summer-in-provincetown-digs-deep-into-a-vietnamese-familys-past

[4] Cite news|url=http://fr.chatelaine.com/opinions/irma-le-poids-des-souvenirs-emportes/

[5] Cite news|url=http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/09/16/une-odyssee-chargee-dhumanite

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]