Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 February	3 February >

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 redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MLS playoffs records[edit]

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

A question in PROD: a PROD nominator says:Why is this needed? Couldn't this be on MLS Cup Playoffs? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for separate article. Giant Snowman 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not relevant and lacks citations, just looks like an indiscriminate collection of stats. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs and include the information there. Plausible search term, important information, but no reason it can't be in the main article. Smartyllama (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs for now, but willing to split and make a standalone article if the section becomes WP:TOOLONG Quidster4040 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that apparently the name is not used. If a redirect is created anyway and anyone objects to that, send it to WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Installware[edit]

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

Orphan (since 2010), no sources (since 2010), nothing more than a dictionary-style definition. Nothing useful turns up in the first few pages of a Google search. Many Google hits are "AGP InstallWare" - not relevant to this - or themselves appear to be derived from the present article. There's not even an independent dictionary definition of this word other than Urban Dictionary. Probable neologism that hasn't caught on. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I have never heard of "installware" and can't see that it's widely used, or even used by any relevant body or reputable media organisation. Google actually kept correcting it to installaware. Which is a commercial software package.Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Potentially unwanted program, which seems to be approximately the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Potentially unwanted program as stated above; there's no way of knowing how many people/if any people use this as a neologism for PUP, but creating a redirect would point those people to the right article if indeed they exist. Nanophosis (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a redirect would make sense only if the word is in fact in use. There is no evidence that it is. We shouldn't be creating 'just in case' redirects for unused neologisms. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I concur, still should be delete rather than redirect in my opinion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)~~ — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
delete pretty clear that nobody uses the word to mean this. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 00:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GAZUA[edit]

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

Rrod'ed this as WP:NOTDICT; prod removed by page creator. I guess a Korean speaker would be able to read the 'sufficient references', but I do so see that the fact that somebody has used the word on TV makes it notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I suggested enough sources that prove this word is spoken in South Korea widely and news articles mainly covered this word. --Motoko C. K. (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDICT.TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that policy. I want to read other user's opinion. --Motoko C. K. (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested other articles that mainly cover this word. --Motoko C. K. (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete"--H.L.LEE (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article definitely falls foul of WP:NOTDIC. It fails to introduce any real notariety, given most of the article is concerned with describing the word only, and would be perfect on Wiktionary instead. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naagin (Geo Kahani)#Main Cast. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hareb Farooq[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:ACTOR. not much coverage in RS. cited material fails verification. Saqib (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of susbtantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more coverage. Please remove the tag. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hj.hj.hj.hjkk (talk • contribs)

None is of significant. --Saqib (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant what? I am not related to media that i can personally add more cites. I have added all the sources which were available. I have seen many pages on Wikipedia which did not contain even a single cite but still they are on main page. You can add a tag that this article need reliable sources but please don't delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.209.252 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that much of Wikipedia does not contain even a single source. Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, however, that's not a reason to keep this article. (Actually, it's probably a better argument that we need to delete more articles.) Chetsford (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entry now includes cites to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Lead role in a major show. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: None of the RS verifies the subject is playing lead role in any TV programme. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bollywood Life article says " It stars Pakistani actress Resham Sheen in lead role. The show also has Jana Malik and Hareeb Farooq in lead roles.". FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as possible WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice for eventual recreation. WP:NACTOR generally requires actors to have had "multiple" leading roles, the subject of this article has only had one leading role. Failing NACTOR, subject would have to meet the GNG, however, sources in article are either non-RS, have a limited reference point to his one leading role, or contain merely incidental mentions. Per the article creator, above, this constitutes "all the sources which were available" [1]. Chetsford (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naagin_(Geo_Kahani)#Main_Cast, the series that he's known for. WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article, as not meeting WP:NACTOR at the present time with a single role. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now a well developed article, that is snowballing into an overwhelming consensus , about a notable author with plenty of sources -- and a NYT reviewed book. Sadads (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ijeoma Oluo[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger/writer who got one quip in a local news source that she was best. This is 1BLP at it's lowest. Article contains some references, but mostly to primary and unreliable sources. Throw in a few (not in citation givens) and self published references, and there is no notability shown at all. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article as it stands meets WP:GNG, the author has received independent coverage in multiple secondary sources over a sustained period of time, about different topics and incidents (Nytimes, Seattle Magazine, The Stranger, Salon). The article could use some work in moving citations added by the newbie who started the article into Further Reading or Bibliography. In addition to the sources that are there, I was in the midst of improving the article, will continue. Monikasj (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 22:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FFS [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not merely require sources in RSs but that they are independent and significant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find even one independent and significant source in any of those 22 links? You don't consider Time magazine to be independent? Are you saying Ijeoma Oluo controls Time Magazine? And CNN? Does CNN work for Ijeoma Oluo? And Wired? And Ebony? None of these are independent? Is she some kind of supervillian? What the hell? Honestly. This is wasting everyone's time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any of those claims. Just reminding people of the actual requirements as they might just be posting sources and not considering the GNG criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to reply "Don't be an asshole" right now to you, you would in no way interpret that as me implying that you had been or were being an asshole, right? I'd just be saying to "people" in general that they shouldn't be an asshole and/or be assholes. Carefully indenting my reply like this :::::Don't be an asshole. --~~~~~ directly under what you posted should not be interpreted as addressing the editor under whose comments I placed my totally general, nonspecific, impersonal remark, intended only as good advice for all people everywhere. Nobody ought to be an asshole, nothing personal, please don't think for one second I'm referring to you. Never in a million years would I say such a thing to a specific editor. Just saying, is all. I will keep your excellent general, nonspecific advice in mind going forward. I'm sure all "people" appreciate that you reminded them of the basic requirements of GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep persubstantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Dennis said. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Dennis. Appears to pass GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep substantial evidence of notability in the article. Meets GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 23:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the first half-dozen ivotes--all keep--were posted, the nominator engaged in what I'd stress gives the impression (not the certainty) of canvassing, by contacting only two (1, 2) of the 15+ previous editors of this entry who had not yet weighed in on the AfD; neither of the two who were contacted were particularly significant contributors. This may not have been intentional, especially as I note those are, at this time, Antonioatrylia's most recent WP edits, so perhaps something came up off WP to prevent them from contacting the page's editors more uniformly. However I still find it highly unadvisable to undertake to post these notices after numerous editors have unanimously disagreed with the nomination (as opposed to at the time of the nomination), as it can give the impression of shopping for ivotes. And obviously the bottom line that only two editors were notified is a problem regardless of intention. Given that this has happened, and that community opinion still unanimously disagrees with the nomination, I'd suggest this be snow or speedily closed, before it becomes even more of a mess than it already is (at this time, neither of the editors who received these notices have commented). Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was not canvassed or contacted in any way about this. I have edited this page in the past and I saw it was up for deletion. Oluo is definitely notable enough to have an article entry. This article is well sourced and she's mentioned in many notable places over the course of years. She is an influential writer and has published articles in several major newspapers, and has published two books, one of which has been noted by several newspapers and magazines including the NYT and Harper's Bazaar. Besides all that, Oluo was also part of a Facebook account deletion controversy in 2017 that was widely covered in the news at the time. Perhaps there are problems with the article that need to be addressed, but she certainly deserves an entry. Someone may have been misbehaving, possibly because they didn't understand the rules, but the article stands on its own and shouldn't be deleted. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known writer. WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I concur with everything said by Dennis Bratland, especially the swearing. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep article clearly meets WP:GNG especially after improvements. Jessamyn (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Academy of Bacoor, Cavite[edit]

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

The previous AfD only brought forth sources verifying the existence of the Academy, but they were so thin that they did nothing to prove the school meets notability guidelines. Schools are not automatically notable, there still needs to be significant coverage and this school simply does not have that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD can be found at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Lourdes Academy of Bacoor Cavite, Inc.. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two years of development and the article is still a single line with a dubious reference. I'm not sure that even passes WP:V. The list of potential sources seem to be all mentions in lists and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. We don't know enough from the available references to create an article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick check on Google only have a few hits, most of them social media en Wikipedia-mirrors. Now that Schooloutcomes is finally discounted, we can judge the article on its merits. And than you draw a blank... The Banner talk 09:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, as I explained in the first AfD, while there are sources that serve the bare purpose of verifying that this school exists, the coverage is so thin that there is nothing to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can show existence on various lists, but this is indeed sub-minimal. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. adequate consensus after 2nd relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Society of Saint Thomas[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Sources are all primary and inaccessible to general readers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major missionary organisation, offline references are allowed as well as the web Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the probably only congregation of an entire Eastern Catholic rite, which gave it three bishops; I've added a major Catholic reference site's page and some more data from it Curopalates (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a well known Religious order in India. The article should be given time to improve and add references. ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 04:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search on Google found out only passing references. Hagennos (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this religious order is large enough to be notable, and the fact that it has produced three bishops is a significant sign of it's impact within a Eastern Catholic sui iuris Church. WP:NPOSSIBLE applies here, as it is obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with the subject area that the sourcing would exist here if we had access to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 14:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Award[edit]

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

Not notable. No refs in the article, and the coverage I find is largely sourced (or possibly sourced) to Wikipedia. I see no mention on Guerin Sportivo's website, nor any contemporaneous coverage of this being awarded. I'm not entirely convinced this isn't a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll look into more later when I have time but wanted to say it appears to be a valid award as there is an external link to it on RSSSF here. NZFC^(talk) 21:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's likely it exists (or at least existed up to 2015), I've just not found references which prove it existed, which is very bizarre. The mentions in bios of (e.g.) Lionel Messi published years later could be relying on Wikipedia or RSSSF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly exists, and equally clearly regarded as noteworthy. My first ten Google search results (for Trofeo Bravo, not Bravo Award) include two contemporary news results. In 2004, Diario AS reported Cristiano Ronaldo receiving "el prestigioso Trofeo Bravo que concede la publicación deportiva italiana Guerin Sportivo" (the prestigious Trofeo Bravo awarded by the Italian sports publication Guerin Sportivo). In 2007, reporting Messi's win, El Mundo stated that the award is considered the under-21 equivalent of the Ballon d'Or. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway's excellent (as ever) research. Giant Snowman 15:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a bit of confusion regarding the title which may have inhibited searches for sources, but looks clear that it is relatively widely reported. The article itself needs more sourced prose on the awards itself and not just be limited to a list of winners. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Park[edit]

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

Municipal park, fails WP:GNG. A search doesn't reveal any in-depth coverage of the park. Rusf10 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An in-depth search soon reveals plenty of sources. The nomination is false. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give some examples of these sources?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search links are conveniently provided above. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? Just because the subject is mentioned in an article does not mean it has significant coverage. Simply clicking on those links and declaring "there are search results, it must be notable" does not actually establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this park has numerous mentions, but nothing indepth, maybe appropriate for a redirect/merge to Copiague, New York? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing notable enough to merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep abundant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nom is reminded to please follow WP:BEFORE. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to throw out terms like "abundant coverage", it would be helpful to actually point to those sources. The only source in the article right now is [24], that's not independent. All I can find is several Newsday articles that just happen to mention the park, which I'd hardly consider abundant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions of a municipal park are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the same results as JPL: passing references to a place where routine things happen, but nothing substantial about the park. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable municipal park. Article does not cite secondary, independent RS, and significant coverage not found either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koven (group)[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill. Non-notable music group, sources are mostly interviews (primary). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Award won is not a significant/notable one. — Za wl 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank[edit]

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

The wedding of a minor royal is not notable enough for inclusion. Thus far all our articles concerning British royal marriages are about marriages of a sovereign, a child of a sovereign or a child of the heir to the throne. Eugenie is way down the list of succession and while there may be a few tabloid photos it's barely newsworthy let alone notable enough for inclusion here. Nixon Now (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Additional comment: or merge with Princess Eugenie of York. Nixon Now (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really doubt that the granddaughter of the reigning monarch can be categorized as a minor royal. The fact that we don't have an article about the wedding of a grandchild of a sovereign is not a solid reason for deleting this article as this event cannot be compared to those of 50 years ago when internet didn't exist so not every single royal event could be covered. The event has already been covered and mentioned in multiple sources, including major news agencies and newspapers, thus it's notable. Keivan.f^Talk 07:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not a minor royal, 8th in line to the throne, big event. Szzuk (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BBC called her a "minor royal" and this was even before the birth of William's two children (and by the time she marries, she'll be 9th in line, not 8th): "As well as the Queen and her close family, the wedding will be teeming with more minor royals. Among the better known are Princess Beatrice and her sister, Eugenie, pictured here. Daughters of the Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson, aka Duke and Duchess of York, their full titles are HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York and HRH Princess Eugenie Victoria Helena of York"[25]
- In addition, Eugenie is not among the first six in the line to succession who are required to get the Queen's consent under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, and by the time the wedding occurs, not even her father will be one of the top 6 so I think that's a clear indication that she is a minor royal. Nor do we have articles for the marriages of Anne's children, Peter Phillips or Anne Phillips both of whom, like Eugenie, are grandchildren of the Queen yet considered minor royals. Nixon Now (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also think this event isn't going to be covered by every major UK newspaper and TV channel? Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many celebrity weddings get widespread news coverage. I suspect George Clooney's wedding to Amal Alamuddin received wider news coverage than Eugenie's wedding will yet we don't and shouldn't have an article dedicated to Clooney's wedding. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. The information in this article could easily be included in the article on Eugenie. Nixon Now (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not possible to merge it with Eugenie's article as it will make the whole article look unbalanced. BBC mentions her as a minor royal in one report yet it covers her engagement in detail which means that news agencies like BBC consider this event notable, otherwise they wouldn't have covered it. Peter and Zara are the Queen's grandchildren in female line, yet they are neither prince/princess nor they are labeled as official members of the royal family. By the way, the articles related to royals cannot be compared to articles about celebrities. Clooney's wedding was a private event, not a public event like Eugenie's, and that's what makes the royals relevant in some ways – their weddings and funerals are public (and in some cases national) occasions. Keivan.f^Talk 22:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a public event? It is not a state occasion and there is no indication that it will be televised live or that the prime minister or Commonwealth or foreign leaders will be in attendance. Being covered by the tabloid press and monarchy related magazines does not a public event make. Nixon Now (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And who says that it won't be televised? And as a matter of fact, neither William's wedding nor Harry's are state occasions, that's why I used the term public. I don't know what is considered a reliable source by you, but BBC, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc, are not tabloid press like Daily Mail. Peter and Zara's wedding ceremonies were also broadcast on BBC. Their arrival, departure, and almost everything (except the marriage service inside the chapel) was shown live on BBC and I even remember watching some parts of Zara's wedding. As with Eugenie's wedding, it hasn't been announced whether it will be televised or not. As of now, the announcement of their engagement, their interview on TV, etc, are similar in nature to what we have seen with Harry and Meghan during the past months, although they attract more attention due to Harry's popularity and Meghan's background. Keivan.f^Talk 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what evidence do you have that it's a "public occasion". List your source. Having articles about it in the press or even an interview doesn't make it "public" any more than any other celebrity wedding. Nixon Now (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can’t compare George Clooney’s wedding to a Princess wedding they are totally different things Clooney’s was a private event with only close friends and Family whilst Princess Eugenie’s as granddaughter of the Queen will have news coverage, Harry’s wedding is also not a special occasion it’s been said that it won’t be a bank holiday so what’s special about it? This to wedding are almost the same the only difference is that Harry is son of Princess Diana and Eugenie isn’t MaliG28 (talk)

That entirely depends on what your definition of "public" is. She's a royal, everything about her is public, and it's not my interpretation, they define themselves as public servants of the country, and almost all the details about their lives are made public, which in nature is in contrast to George Clooney or any other actor's life who are private citizens. The ceremony is going to be held at St George's Chapel, and is going to be similar to the weddings of her uncles Edward and Charles in 1999 and 2005 respectively, which means that it's going to get coverage but the ceremony will be simple, yet my question is what makes those weddings notable and this one unimportant? And to me it seems that as a member of the British royal family - probably the most well-known royal family in the world - her wedding is getting more coverage than those of princes or princesses from some other countries which we have articles about. Keivan.f^Talk 22:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that’s exactly what I’m saying!! What makes this wedding less important than those of princesses most people don’t know about? MaliG28 (talk)

Eugenie is not one of the Royals paid through the privy purse so she is not a working or by your definition a "public" royal. As well, Windsor Castle is the Queen's personal property unlike Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's. She's a minor royal and her wedding is not a "public event" and does not merit an article. Nixon Now (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being public has nothing to do with her source of income. She carries out public engagements on behalf of her grandmother and makes appearances unlike her other cousins Peter and Zara, so yes, she's a public figure. St George's Chapel is the venue for Harry's upcoming wedding and is the place where Edward's and Charles' weddings took place. Based on your rationale none of these events are neither public nor notable. Keivan.f^Talk 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the Duke of York’s website says that Eugenie is patron of 5 charities and organizations that makes her a “public” Royal.[26] MaliG28 (talk)

You're making up a term and then defining it to suit your needs. The fact is she isn't paid from the privy purse and isn't included in the concept of a slimmed down monarchy that Buckingham Palace now supports.. See for example this article and this article Nixon Now (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is trying to create a term. So to be considered a public figure she needs to get paid from the privy purse. I'm sorry, I know that she's not a "full-time royal" but I've never read anything like that before. I think we should let the voters judge. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Princess Eugenie is the granddaughter of the most famous reigning monarch in the world so it will definitely be a public event, specially since we have internet it’s not only going to be seen in the UK but in other parts of the world as well , and it’s already been drawing attention from important newspapers. MaliG28 (talk)
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We can have lots of coverage of this event in the article on Princess Eugenie, but there is no reason to have a stand alone article on it. Also with Prince Harry about to get married, that will make it likely that Princess Eugenie could be pushed even further down the line of succession soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say Wikipedia is not a newspaper and yet there are wedding articles of lesser known royals such as Princess Madeleine’s and Prince Carl Phillip’s , and Harry is going to marry a few months before her so she won’t be pushed any further down the line of succession by the time of her wedding besides Miss Markle is 37 years old I doubt it will be easy for her to get pregnant soon. Princess Eugenie is a Princess by blood and the granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth her wedding will be an important event. MaliG28 (talk)

That's an argument for there to be an article on Princess Eugenie of York, not for there to be an article dedicated to her wedding.Nixon Now (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so why this article has to be on her Wikipedia and the others mentioned on the comments get to have its own articles. Just because YOU think this is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant for the rest of us, if you don’t want to see or read this article then don’t do it. MaliG28 (talk)

Your argument in rebuttal here makes no sense and doesn't reference any Wikipedia policies or guidelines (not correctly at least). I think you need to review Wikipedia's articles for deletion process and how we establish notability here before you respond here further. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there’s a point where it says “Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time” and this article is already an it will meet this criteria, as granddaughter of the queen her wedding will get a lot of coverage from important news, it’s notabi it’s not in jeopardy, like i said just because a few don’t know her it doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t know who she is, Harry’s wedding has it own Wikipedia page as well and why that one is okay but this one isn’t ? Not everyone knows Harry , Not everyone knows Eugenie’s but as grandchild of the current monarch their weddings will get a lot of attention MaliG28 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a few weeks is not a "sufficiently significant period of time". Secondly, could you please sign your comments? Nixon Now (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bound to be significant coverage of this event, not just of the tabloid variety, so this will pass WP:GNG. And she is a granddaughter of a reigning monarch. There's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL information that needs to be removed though (like the month in the infobox, which I thought hadn't been decided yet). This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since she has a royal title, that gives added weight to this article's notable status. This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Eugenie of York, where it will make a useful section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the wedding of a princess is bound to be a significant event with major news coverage, especially if the bride is a member of the British Royal Family.181.67.252.166 (talk) 14:17,31 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Will be a significant event. Articlewill be updated throughout the timeleft untik the wedding per British media sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify, arguments are stating that it will be a significant event. Let's wait until it is a significant event. --J04n(talk page) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has already recieved plenty of media attention and is already high profiled. BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s already a significant event. MaliG28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She will be the first British princess of the blood royal to marry in almost thirty years, and the first in forty five with potential big press coverage. There has already been a good amount of media coverage by major sources such as the Telegraph and BBC. It would also look ungainly to have the list of attending members of the R.F on Eugenie's page and other famous people that may come and all the trivia and info surrounding the wedding. Also unlike her Phillips cousins, a press release of Eugenie's engagement has been put on the Royal Family's website and the engagement was retweeted and announced by the RF Twitter, and the other official twitters, which shows it is a royal wedding, not one where members of the Royal Family are invited. Prancer16 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above when I posted on here last week. Also, as has been highlighted by someone else, she is the first British royal princess to marry in a long while, but the tiemspan is twenty six years rather than forty five, since, although we don't have an article about it, the Wedding of Anne, Princess Royal, and Timothy Laurence took place in 1992. This is Paul (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I forgot about the Princess Royal's second marriage.Prancer16 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the two comments above already highlighted she will be the first Princess by blood to marry in 26 years and the first to marry in the Church of England in 45 years (the Princess Royal second marriage was by the Church of Scotland as the Church of England didn’t allow divorced people to remarry)and as I already posted before, important news agencies have covered the engagement and will definitely cover the wedding as it will be an important event for the Royal Family. MaliG28 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @This is Paul and MaliG28: I just have a question. I don't think it's necessary to vote again down here because our initial votes are going to get counted when the discussion is over, right? Keivan.f^Talk 22:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- engagement has been announced, and there's already sufficient coverage. Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is also a page. This would inevitably get recreated so might as well keep it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Lagoon[edit]

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

No claim of notability for a city facility which wouldn't be presumed notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Barker[edit]

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

No independent references found, under either this name or her married (current) name Jenny Hutchinson. Hosts of local radio shows generally aren't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-station local radio personalities are not automatically presumed notable just because their staff profile on the website of their own employer nominally verifies that they exist — they must be the subject of enough media coverage, in sources other than their own paycheque provider, to clear WP:GNG, but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about her being shown here at all. And as for that first AFD discussion, when the hell did we ever close an AFD as a keep just because nobody had voted in it within just one week? Bearcat (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-station radio personalities are almost never notable, when it is only sourced to that stations own website there is no even remote sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bluffdale, Utah. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bluffdale City Fire Department[edit]

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

Article, referenced only to the city's own primary source website about itself, about a small city's municipal fire department. Fire departments exist and do essentially the same things everywhere, so they are not all extended an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist -- they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article to become warranted. But there's no evidence being shown that this one has what's required. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fire departments need a lot more than coverage from the city they serve to show notability. Anything worth noting can be included in the article on Bluffdale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bluffdale, Utah]Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyad Alrababah[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E concerns; there are no references in the article, but [27] summarizes the situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP; an unsourced article on a living person who is also a low-profile individual, not charged in connection with terrorism. There may be a notable topic here somewhere -- see for example Homeland Insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American Experience After 9/11 -- but the article would need to fundamentally rewritten and sourced. The notability is marginal at best, so perhaps such article would never get written. So delete per nuke and pave. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes close to amounting to a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone held as a witness to even major crimes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a tough one. Unfortunately it has a source so BLPPROD is not an option, even though the source is inappropriate. I agree it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. Re User:Johnpacklambert This doesn't really happen for "minor" crimes, but use of the material witness warrant to indefinitely detain people after 9/11 was a huge deal. There was a Supreme Court case about it. This was discussed in one of the major amici briefs [28]. Alrababah is also mentioned in enough WP:RS (books from academic publishers, and news stories [29]) as one of those detained that it passes WP:BLP1E. But the article needs to be rewritten based on secondary sources, and it might be better to redirect to the al Kidd case. My only concern is that case articles end up becoming long enough that spinouts are sometimes needed for background topics.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Barry[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. JDDJS (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SORA training[edit]

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

Article, written like a school's course calendar rather than an encyclopedia article, about a security guard training curriculum. While I have to imagine that a proper encyclopedia article about this would probably be possible, the sourcing here isn't cutting it for making this notable: it's referenced to just two primary sources (a government information page and the self-published web page of a private school that offers the training), not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing meaningful in the article other than primary sources, nothing found in a Google search and the only two links to the article (at [[[Certified Protection Officer]] and Security guard) are in see also sections. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Plus[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Neither secondary references nor claims of notability in the article, and none found in Google search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete should have been speedied for being an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. Natureium (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created in 2010 by a WP:SPA and has only ever been a collection of inline external links. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Ndou[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors. Although this is true of a lot of our articles on actors. We need a major house clearing in this area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely commissioned work created by a spam only account. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Knights of Columbus. Not strictly the consensus, but it it was suggested, and seems obvious per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus[edit]

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

I don't see any coverage outside of KofC-related websites of the role of Deputy Supreme Knight in its own right, only tangentially in that a person being covered might be or have been one. Largoplazo (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Knights of Columbus Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the lone argument to keep, from a user with very limited editing history and who made no policy-based points, there's unanimous, if thin, consensus to delete. I'll call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Check LIVE: Ms. Lauryn Hill & Tyrese Gibson[edit]

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

none of the sources mention the subject Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV this seems to be a segment from another program that hasn"'t got its own page yet. No proof of notability for this segment Domdeparis (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "withdraw from deletion" ~~"Keep"~~ "withdraw from deletion" The subject is notable and citations have been given representing time and date for this segment in wich was aired The segment is cited with reliable press and resources

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysl33 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysl33: Would you mind saying which of the sources you added as the article's creator mention the subject of this article? I could not find any mention of this in sources. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:GNG and not independently notable. Unclear why we should have an article of this segment. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pillows discography#Video albums. Michig (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Busters on the Planet[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability and has been previously deleted at AfD for exactly the same reason. Amisom (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Pillows. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep মাখামাখি (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Amisom (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above keep opinion was typed in and saved only 41 seconds after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate. ––Sam Sailor 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dovetail Joint (band), one minute after the votes found by @Sam Sailor: above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist article The Pillows as a categorized {{R from album}}, cf. WP:MUSICOUTCOMES, seems like a sensible suggestion. The DVD may not meet WP:NALBUMS, but the title is a valid search term. Sam Sailor 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Pillows or The Pillows discography. Unsourced and no claim of independent notability.--Auric talk 00:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Pillows discography. The DVD certainly exists but I can find no robust reviews or commentary on it, so it was probably a quickie that was largely ignored by the music press. Not enough notice to achieve notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting to the discography is also fine with we, that's also a typical target for an {{R from album}}. (@Doomsdayer520: Notifications only work, if sent in a signed message. I.e. I didn't get the one you added above. But no worries. ) Sam Sailor 21:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Harvey[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is for a cricketer who fails WP:CRIN. He has not played any top level matches, and the team he was signed for (that caused the PROD to be taken off) has been knocked out of the Big Bash without him playing a game. Any remaining coverage is for WP:BLP1E. Spike 'em (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering how absurdly low the notability guidelines for cricket players are, I am in shock we actually found someone who does not meet them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Ian Harvey. Fails standard notability guidelines. SunChaser (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Harvey mentions Mackenzie as a relative, but I don't think any other biographical detail for Mackenzie should be added there. Spike 'em (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zongora[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Web searches almost always return Hungarian information about pianos. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference, which is cited, is http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaMusic/zongora.htm. Yes, more sourcing would be good, but in 2006 when I wrote this our standards were looser. As far as I know, that is not a reason for deletion. - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has time to work on this, here is another reference: http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/edu/ViewLoitLo.do;jsessionid=A1AB194299586F5B8C751D8A9E83150A?method=preview&lang=EN&id=11450. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense – the nominator wants to delete the article, not keep it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

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

Keep. Easily sourced with just English language sources, now meets WP:GNG. Plenty more sources in Romanian, Hungarian, and German. The trick is to add qualifiers to Zongora, see alt. searches above. The article was not unsourced when it was nominated for deletion. An external link is also a source. Sam Sailor 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's no doubt this instrument exists and has been mentioned in a variety of reliable sources. Probably needs someone proficient in a variety of European languages to be able to improve the article, but that's not a reason for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Partnership Programme (WiPP)[edit]

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

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. All links in article are primary Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is really a stub with a lot of cites, and I've marked it as such. GBook hits reveal extensive 3rd party discussion of the program. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to General medical services , the uK organization of which this is a minor component.It does need some coverage, but it would be better within the general article. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanity Label[edit]

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

A, well, vanity label, more or less, that may have been used by The Format, or may have amounted to nothing. The false hit level is obviously high but I'm not finding anything significant other than the bare association of the band and the label, and I note from our article that the band quit within a year after this label was announced. I'm not utterly adverse to merger to the band but by general commercial standards it seems to me that this would fail notability entirely. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless it can be WP:V the label actually issued material by The Format. If so, then Merge and redirect. In any case this has no notability outside the band that made the label for their own purposes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yes, the label did release material by the Format (one studio album, and a couple of live albums and EPs, plus reissues of their previous product on the major label that dropped them) – looking at the covers of these records online, the name of the record label is clearly visible. But that doesn't confer any notability on the label at all, and I'm not sure a redirect would be useful – Wikipedia users searching for "vanity label" will almost certainly be searching for this definition, and as The Vanity Label was 100% associated with the Format, I'm not sure why anyone would search for the label instead of the band, if they were looking for records by the group. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Telecom Italia. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TIM (brand)[edit]

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

The brand had no specific notability as a separate article of Telecom Italia. The page had no content other than WP:routine and mostly primary source. Straight delete or turn to redirect Matthew_hk t c 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Telecom Italia Mobile is a subsidiary of Telecom Italia, i.e., it is a different company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.137.148 (talk) 2018-01-25T14:28:41‎

@189.69.137.148:, the article was under Telecom Italia Mobile namespace circa 2015 and contains some controversy in Brazil (which was moved to TIM Brasil). However, the concern was the subsidiary/brand itself lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS (secondary independent source). Wikipedia is not a place that spam of every subsidiary of major company of Europe. Matthew_hk t c 14:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 14:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests that the subject has WP:ORG notability separate from Telecom Italia.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Or redirect per below.--Rpclod (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Telecom Italia Is at the very least the company's front-facing brand; their logos are all over Italian sports at the very least (and they're the main sponsor of Serie A). Nate • (chatter) 18:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Telecom Italia. Brands are a part of of the parent company and the notability (sponsoring events, advertisements, etc) are a result of the parent company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cad-Capture Group[edit]

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

While there does appear to be some hits in reliable sources, they don't appear to be significant as it appears that they primarily discuss Barclays (one of their clients). Actual coverage specifically about the company appears to be lacking. A7 was declined by SoWhy Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage not found; just a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deleting. I was the one that created this article in draft format - how do I check the draft page? This person who created it has just just taken it and pasted it on to the page. It was in draft for a reason, I was still working on compiling it with more content and sources. Thief. X6540 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see logo here which was added by me, back in September 2017. I will eventually publish this, but as it stands, it isn't ready and should be deleted until more content and sources are added (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cad-Capture_Logo.png&action=history) X6540 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Stolen with no additional content and/or sources added in order to be eligible as a fully fledged wiki. Support for DELETION. User:X6540 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Ratsama (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Mountz Zeigler[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources for this person. Fram (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails GNG, NBIO. What is the "gay corner" and how is it a claim to significance. A7? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - article fails WP:NBIO. Definitley WP:A7 - will add speedy delete template. --Kirbanzo (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have found out that the author is a permabanned user, so they cannot contest a speedy deletion. Shouldn't affect this though. -Kirbanzo (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph’s College of Law[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill college. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. References are PRIMARY sources or are based on announcements. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : non-notable institution; no alumni of note, apparently. Quis separabit? 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected], Notable alumni are not required and do not add to notability of the article subject. See WP:ITSA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...whilst AADD also has WP:OUTCOMESBASED, I would agree that it's not a very good reason.But, have you missed non-notable institution?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain My understanding is that tertiary educational institutions are of their nature notable. This is a brand new institution, so not many references yet, but three references given are: to the media source daijiworld.com where it is listed as a top story (though sourced from the Director of the school); on the KonKanCatholic website, by the editor; and as a news article in News Karnataka. Please give it time to attract more media attention, it's not five months old! Jzsj (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry? Did the RfC suddenly mutate from a discussion about secondary schools to one about tertiary institutions? I hadn't realised that it was in fact secretly about all educational institutions! Maybe you'd care to explain to all of us where it says this? Because my reading is that it refers to secondary schools only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm..To be fair, N is correct and that's actually a non-weigh-able !vote.Please re-correct your arguments.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:UNI/AG#Notability. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My nomination was based on my assessment of this topic according to WP:NCORP for "organizations/companies". Is this law school a commercial profit-oriented organization? Without independent coverage in reliable sources, it fails GNG regardless of which guidelines is used. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We have never considered education institutions to fall into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not aware of the various discussions such as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES until now, but I have now read that and some others. I note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that WP:ORG forms part of the notability guidelines for schools and colleges, so I am sticking with my nomination. Policy such as GNG states that independent in-depth sources must be available. The purpose of the guidelines available at WP:UNI/AG#Notability is not to provide educational institutions with an "easier" standard for inclusion and in my opinion, if less that two intellectually independent sources are available for any school or college, then it fails WP:ORG and therefore the topic also fails GNG. The essays and guidelines are not instead of policy, but to assist editors in interpreting policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a policy, HighKing. Indeed, the preamble contains the statement: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.. There is a clearly a number of users, probably deletionists, who are not aware of the many exceptions to notability guidelines, exceptions which incientaly do not only include various educational institutions. These exceptions are documented and are have been widely acccepted by the community for many years, as demonstrated in hundreds of AfD closures thus establishing clear precedents which we observe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that your'e not in a very good pedestal to brand others as deletionists.Just, IMO. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nominator. Pure business entities, spawning out every here and there.This thread may be of some interest.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Approved by the Bar Council of India in New Delhi, such a school even if relatively new, is hardly in need of advertising itself to those wishing to pursue a career in law. Whilst I, as an experienced page patroller and deleting admin, would agree that many, if not most one-liners are spam, this is clearly not so. 12:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)[reply]

@Kudpung:--That comes from an unfamiliarity with the Indian Education system.Any law-callege must be mandatorily affiliated by BCI or be subject to immediate closure as an illegal entity sans some exceptional cases.And these private colleges or degree-mills are in need of advertisement, to attract students and a WP entry surely helps in achieving that.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right @Winged Blades of Godric:, and I would certainly bow to your better knowledge of the Indian education system - I have never worked there in law schools. Perhaps we should examine this in context with Karnataka State Law University because while there is no proof that it is a mill, we don't hesitate to mention the fact in such articles if there are sufficient RS. Ironically, that would then be a good reason not to delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering colleges and/or law colleges coupled with Bangalore is a red flag.AFAIR, a few years back, a TOI media-unit reported Bangalore to be a city where you will get to see more engineering/law colleges than sanitation facilities per street! KSLU etc. are definitely notable despite the self-sourced pathetic-state of the articles and I'll be happy enough to have it redirected to there.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. all degree-granting intstitutions are considered notable atWP. It is better to maintain thixs tule than to try to argue details about each one individually. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instituition or mill?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Does this college grant its own degrees? This appears to say that it grants degrees from Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi? Let me know. If it does grant its own degrees, then hey hey hey!. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as you know, the situation in India is complicated, and in the process of changing. For many decades there was essentially no mechanism for a new college to get degree-granting authority,so theyawarded degrees through some existing institution, which essentially rubber-stamped them on the basis of the certificate of the actual teaching institution. But there are also numerous branches of some college systems best treated together. DGG ( talk ) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, you say that the situation in India is complicated and I admit that I have no idea how things operate in India. Since the basis of the Keep !votes here appear to rely on established consensus and interpretation that a college that grants its own degrees is notable, the onus is on the Keep !voters to show that this institution meets these criteria. But clearly, strictly speaking, this college does not grant its own degrees. Given that the situation in India is complicated, is it also an established consensus to make allowances for complicated situations (like India)? If so, can you point me to somewhere? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Situations as complicated as India need be considered individually, for they are too diverse to have established practice. For the specific case of India, I think it really has to go university by university. The alternative to individual articles is a merged article, and for any university system anywhere in the world, this has to be considered. Among the key factors is the importance of the individual institution (in terms of prestige, how long its been established, number of graduates, importance in its local region, etc.) , the independence of the institution, the amount of information available, the importance of the group, and the nature of the group. For groups of institutions under common management, we often merge, especially if the existing articles are uniform and uniformly promotional . For branch campuses, we merge until they have established significance in their own right, For institutions that merely use another institution for the convenience of awarding degrees, we tend to keep separate. India is distinctive mainly in the number & complexity of the systems and the various chronological layers of development, many of which seem to exist simultaneously ind inconsistently, but almost all the particular arrangements also occurs elsewhere . (It's not the immediate situation here, but one factor to keep in mind, in India and elsewhere, is the tendency to have some degree of lose affiliation with more prestigious organizations--these are often in the nature of mere transfer arrangements to recognize the credits, but the college articles tend to make a very great deal of them for obvious promotional reasons. I usually remove them from the lead and the infobox.)

The GNG offers no help here, even to the extent it applies at all: in one of its realistic statements, it says that for organizations that meet notability , there can still be combination articles if there is insufficient information for full articles. There is no clear-cut basis for makin gsuch choices. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard St.Ofle[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NARTIST. Run-of-the-mill artist. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact it was created by an SPA is irrelevant for deletion discussions. The valid question is whether or not there are good sources in the article and in general. the answer to that is no.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Geiger[edit]

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

We have one reliable source (Birosik) which spends 3 sentences on Geiger (his album or tape "Impressions"). The quote "These albums are among the finest examples of New Age Vocal music released to date" is not about Geiger but about the previous entry in that book, Gass. The next two lines, plus one extra line in the book after it, is all we have on Geiger from reliable sources. The second source in the article is not reliable, which means that we have no reliable sources for his biographical information, and only one short source about one piece of music he made. All I could find otherwise were some passing mentions, people thanking Geiger for help with a book or so. Fram (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no sources giving the indepth coverage we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fear[edit]

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

Have tried to improve this article. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 13:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Keeley[edit]

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

Lack of notability, Afd rather than csd because there is a slim claim of notability, but the businessman of the year award is very local. TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator: this subject does not meet WP:BIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of company CEOs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero claim to notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dawkins[edit]

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

This is a courtesy nomination raised on request of the subject, Julius Dawkins, via VRTS ticket # 2017122610007168. The rationale submitted in the OTRS ticket is used below with Julius' consent.

I would like to start this discussion with, for reasons I do not want to disclose. The existence of my article puts my family and myself safety at risk. Because the information in it might be used to trace my family and trace me, and while it is available elsewhere at the moment. It would tremendously help my family and especially me to feel more secure. I have asked the NFL to remove my information for the same reasons. They immediately remove my whole profile from their website. I truly hope you will do the same!!!! Nthep (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So... how are we supposed to treat this? Do we take his plea into account? Ignore it and !vote based on policies and guidelines? Or is it up to our own individual discretions? Lizard (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard:

Comment this is intriguing. I checked the policy (WP:BIODELETE) and it says:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, then the closing editor may generally treat the nomination as a PROD.[1]

I would take this to mean that it will be deleted according to the request, unless there is a particularity good reason to keep it, that would have to be the article subject is 'notable' and a 'public figure', and the article would have to be well sourced.

I can't tell if he is 'notable' or a 'public figure' because that is dictated by a subject specific guideline I know little about, and he is an American football player which I also know nothing about. However, the article is not well sourced, and since the subject has gone to the lengths to actively remove sources, it may be hard to find more. I would say the article should probably be deleted for this reason, though simply removing all unsourced information and adding references could fix this.

I was under the impression that America was quite safe, I don't understand how or why there is a risk issue involved, and if there is a valid protection issue, I understand that the WikiMedia Foundation could oversighter the article for legal reasons without an AfD, so I will ignore that entirely. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Well, he meets WP:NGRIDIRON by having played in the NFL. He also had a pretty decent college football career. He's definitely Wikipedia notable; he probably isn't real life notable. So I'd say he falls under "relatively unknown, non-public figure." Lizard (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term public figure has legal meaning under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and their progeny. I don't know if there's case law directly on point, but at least one supposed expert (here) has stated: "A semi-professional football player, for instance, may not be considered a public figure though he may be known to many people within the region his team represents. However, someone who plays football in the NFL is most likely a public figure, due to his national prominence." Aside from having played in the NFL, Dawkins was a first-team All-American. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how do we know this is on the level? Did the person who submitted the UTRS ticket prove his identity? The subject passes the notability guidelines quite clearly, and the information in the article is all 25+ years old. It's not like we are telling people where he lives now. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Did the person who submitted the UTRS ticket prove his identity? - yes. Nthep (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 3 caveats. Clearly passes multiple notability standards, including WP:NGRIDIRON (played in NFL), WP:NCOLLATH (first-team All-American), and WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Also, as noted above, I doubt he qualifies as a "non-public figure." More importantly, I fail to see how Wikipedia's publication of information about his football career which ended 34 years ago could threaten his safety or allow him to be traced. This information is widely available from multiple on-line sources, including Pro-Football-Reference.com (here), SR/College Football (here), ArenaFan.com (here), and Pro Football Archives (here). Further, Dawkins' assertion that the NFL removed his "whole profile" from its web site is simply untrue. His profile remains at nfl.com (here) though date and place of birth are absent. The concessions I would suggest are to (i) remove his date and place of birth from the article (as was done at nfl.com), as those pieces of data could be used for tracing purposes, (ii) prohibit adding information about his current details (which are presently absent and should not be added); and (iii) protecting the article so it can only be edited by registered users. With those caveats, I support keeping the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Mr. Dawkins' comments at the talk page. His primary concern appears to be with DOB and place of residence. This reinforces my belief that the three restrictions I proposed above are appropriate measures. I would also be fine with a higher level of page protection. I have removed the year of birth and place of birth from the article during the pendency of this discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl's reasoning and caveats. Lizard (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but this is a bit silly and a little over dramatic on the part of Dawkins. Just being honest here.--Yankees10 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, without the caveats. Easily meets WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in 27 games with the Buffalo Bills of the National Football League. Also passes WP:NCOLLATH as a first-team All-American college football player. The information in question is basic biographical data on a public figure that is readily and easily available elsewhere on the web. I fail to see how posting a birthdate and place of birth could possibly pose any type of security issue. It's not like we're putting his social security number out there or anything. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ignore all rules -- If the family is at risk (and I will assume good faith in his comments) then we can remove the article. I'd rather keep it, but sometimes you just say "what the hey"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl3, with date and place of birth removed. I would also suggest removing the high school information which is not all that easily available. But the remainder of the article is very public and easily accessible. I would suggest that the subject also contact Pro Football Reference if there is an issue, because some of the information that may be troubling is listed there. Rlendog (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the high school information, per my comment above. If there is any other information that could be used to trace the subject or create a security threat I would be happy to remove that too. But right now I think it is generic information that exceeds what actually still remains of the nfl.com profile in that it mentions a sentence about his college career, which I think would be troubling to remove since he was an All-American and thus thus this information is widely and easily accessible with or without Wikipedia, and a sentence about the Arena Football League, which was professional and again not difficult to discover outside Wikipedia but since that is a lower level than the NFL I think we can remove that if it is really causing a problem for the subject. Rlendog (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIODELETE; the subject has requested deletion and we should honour that. The article's subject is of marginal notability, while the article contains minimal encyclopedically relevant prose, enough to confirm that the subject exists. The presence of his article on Wikipedia does not add that much; its absence would not harm the project -- while it may harm the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to individual's assertions, the NFL has not removed his bio from their website. This gives me serious doubts about the credibility of the message, or its origin. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although note what happens when you click on the "Profile" tab, Smartyllama. I presume that used to bring up a written biography. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the OTRS exchange I have seen the confirmation from the NFL that content has been removed from their website. Nthep (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. publicffigure, and I cannot imagine any possible danger from the material presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonios Liapis[edit]

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

Does not appear notable as an academic or a writer or any other way. More like a resume. No independant coverage noted. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article's creator's account is currently blocked (technical violation of username policy) and is unable to participate here. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may be CV but can be copyedited. G Scholar report a citation count of 873 and an H-index of 17, which is respectable, and marks him out as real researcher, assuming its the same guy at Institute of Digital Games, University of Malta. Hope that helps. I suspect that some academics don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV, as they're working all the time. scope_creep (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Author just moved it to Draft:Antonios Liapis which is a no no during an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac Sorry was based on discussion with The Mighty Glen on talk page.Digitalgames (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Digitalgames beat me to it - this was a good faith move by the article creator, which I've reverted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely if the COPYVIO is removed, article would be passable? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: "CV" here means "curriculum vitae", not WP:CV. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies. I assumed it was a copy violation of someone's posted CV. My mistake. Carry on Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. He completed his PhD degree in 2014 and hasn't had time to build up the publishing records that his fellow researchers Georgios N. Yannakakis (his thesis advisor) and Julian Togelius have. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is cited 874 times. Is that not enough to pass WP:GNG? scope_creep (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand, the number of times he is cited is an indicator of how important his work is but when I click on the citations almost all are "circular" citations by one or more of the coauthors of his published works. Also from what I can see most if not all were written with his professors. How can one weed out the self citations and know if he is not just piggybacking on the notability of his professors? None of the sources cited are in depth coverage so he would seem to fail GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Pitbulls[edit]

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

non-notable tagteam from England. Very little to suggest that they are notible personalities. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - They've received coverage in the UK. Here's what I found: North Norfolk News (2011), Eastern Daily Press (2014), Worthing Herald (2016), and Worthing Herald (2017). Nikki♥311 23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do folks think about the coverage above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only 4 instances of coverage doesn't constitute notability - furthermore (and correct me if I'm wrong), all the sites referenced seem to not be notable publications. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable defunct minor-league pro wrestling team Nufy7 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - additional sources from national publications: The Mirror and BBC. Nikki♥311 20:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable mainstreams sources provided by Nikki311 are sufficient to meet GNG requirements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orient Energy Systems[edit]

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

Article about wrong topic, that should be about the power plant. This company lacks significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Arcade, Jhelum[edit]

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

Local market with no coverage. Not suitable for encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any coverage to indicate that this market is notable enough for it's own article. Greyjoy^talk 11:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Das (actor)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem having the notability. 333 -blue at 11:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (El Dorado Hills, California)[edit]

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

Non-notable municipal park. Fails WP:GNG No significant coverage, only source is government website. Rusf10 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGEO Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave DiCenso[edit]

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

Sources are to niche drummer magazines, not satisfying WP:MUSIC. A quick WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per the original discussion and the likelihood the article is essentially a hoax. Will also salt this title. Fenix down (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pa Sulay Njie[edit]

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

Article concerns a footballer who, despite claims made in the article, has made no appearances at fully professional league or at senior international level, according to reliable and relevant sources. Has previously been deleted by prod and speedied as hoax under this name and at Pa Sulay Njie (footballer), where it's been salted. Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Per nom. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - possible hoax / certainly non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt According to the article he made his international debut in said match, but his name doesn't appear there. According to the article he played for Shrewsbury, but from this article, he only had a trial and may have a failed his fitness. I am sure this person exists, but has been lying about his pedagree to get on club books. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it salty. According to the same rationale as above. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iranian football league system#Current system. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Azerbaijan Province League[edit]

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

No reputation and popularity League, Without resources. JomaIran ^Talk 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would love to know what this is called in Persian so I can search it up. !dave 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave: "لیگ فوتبال استان آذربایجان شرقی" JomaIran ^Talk 11:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iranian football league system#Current system Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehran Province League. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC) last edit:14:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous consensus. GiantSnowman 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: Redirect to which page? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Redirect. The closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehran Province League suggested a merge of all the provincial league articles to Iranian football league system. Anyone could turn this into a redirect without a deletion discussion. The effect of the AfD is to delay this by a week or more, while creating an unnecessary distraction from productive editing and other helpful work. Better to simply create redirects at ~~Tehran Province League (which still hasn't happened),~~ East Azerbaijan Province League and any others, and stop wasting time and effort with useless AfDs. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jacknstock: Redirect to which page? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes to Iranian football league system per previous discussion. Giant Snowman 14:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I answered this question in my original comment. This has already been resolved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehran Province League and will not resolve to a different result. This AfD should be closed early as unnecessary. Just edit all the articles on Iranian 5th tier provincial leagues so they are redirects to Iranian football league system#Current system or Iranian football league system#Men's. We don't need an AfD on each individual article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iranian football league system#Current system or Iranian_football_league_system#Men's if we wanted to be more specific. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Cryptic. WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Mallick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was already deleted after discussions, please see discussions. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your rationale for nomination is covered by WP:G4, I've placed the tag on for you. Iffy★Chat -- 11:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again for the same reason as the first time, and admins should use the WP: SALT or "Creation Protection" process to prevent the article from appearing again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per previous discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Row[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this street. It is mentioned a few times, yes, just like about every street in the world is, but ultimately it clearly fails WP:GEOROAD. Fram (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needed expanding with sources as I have done. Now meets GNG and GEOROAD. Perhaps Fram will be gracious enough to withdraw the nomination now. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very historic street, lots of referenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A "very historic street" being a run-of-the-mill street of which there are thousands in London alone, never mind elsewhere? As I see nothing here that makes this street "very historic" in European terms. Fram (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a relevant street, even looking at the many London streets it is relevant. It clearly meets WP:GNG by a wide margin. The article also meets WP:GEOROAD as it been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. These include (after ignoring the maps and directories such as Lockie, 1810), Articles in The Times, entry in the The London Encyclopaedia, articles in The London Gazette, documents published by the National Archive and more. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
- Which article in e.g. The London Gazette is about Russia Row? Not the one in the article, which is about some people who happened to live or work there. Which is wgat most roads have of course, people who live or work there... The Times articles are about Gresham Street. That the side or back of a building is located on this street is not "an article about this street". Such sources do not contribute to notability as the street is, contrary to what you claim, not "the subject" of these sources, but something mentioned in passing. Fram (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually referring to a different article (1892)^[30] which describes a pottery there, I am not sure if that is what you are looking for precisely though. I am not saying that I have found everything about this road, you can see any number of things, from the detailed council planning publications about the street, (normally down for maintenance heh link) to the slightly crazy pieces such as this article. this, this, this, this, etc, certainly no shortage of people who think it's funny that Trump Street and Russia Row are adjacent. There seem to be a great many wills and lawsuits where one party was from Russia Row, for what it's worth (not much probably). I still think there is a perfectly reasonable set of sources and that is good enough for a keep. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Delete sorry cant see anything of note about the street in the refs provided, they appear to be passing mentions or nothing you would not expect of hundreds of such streets in London. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under the GNG there just needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "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." Hard to see how those criteria are not met here with entries in the Dictionary of City of London Street Names, London Street Names, The London Encyclopaedia and others that are among the leading authorities in their field. Note, these are not one line entries. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect a London Encyclopedia to cover avery street in London it doesnt make them noteworthy or significant coverage, most of the othger sources in the article appear to be directories the British History Online for example is really a one liner to say it is mentioned in another directory. Despite all these directory entries there is nothing of note in the article that makes it stand out from any other street in London, if they are not one line entries then why is the article essentially just trivia. Most of the article reflect the sources which talk about it being listed in these directories nothing about the street itself being of note. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll we've already got Avery Street, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it’s THE London Encyclopedia, thanks! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Philafrenzy. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GEOROAD clearly says "...local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject". This article has that level of coverage required for an article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phila, Ilyina, and C of E. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. MilborneOne, The London Encyclopedia is one of the most respected sources on London I know and I have cited it extensively for at least 30 GAs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in Jan 2018 because of how historic it used to be? Come on. It was created for DYK hook to bash Trump. Trouts all around and cast it back to the sea as just a street. The logic used here would create thousands of Martin Luther King, Jr" streets notable in virtually every city and town in the U.S. --DHeyward (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This straw man argument alludes to logic, yet fails to use any. Firstly, only the Trump Street article was needed for the DYK hook. Secondly, what has MLK street(s) got to do with anything? Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most American cities do not have the 2000+ year history of the City of London, and were not bombed by the Nazis. If you looked at Vine Street, London today you would have no idea why it was notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to add a fascinating bomb damage map. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we have artices on London and its bombing by Nazi Germany. Glad we found this street in Jan 2018. Please. Feel free to include it in those articles that apparently didn't think how important it was. There are also 2000 year old streets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Each, apparently, now deserves an article. Right. --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: If you can find some sources for old streets in Nagasaki then by all means make some, notability is not temporary and will persist after something has been destroyed. Hiroshima seems to have some articles about it's streets already, Namiki-dōri (Hiroshima) & Peace Boulevard (Hiroshima), and not to put to fine a point on it, they are not well sourced. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Keep Thanks to the efforts of Philafrenzy, the article now easily passes both WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A worthy and interesting article. Wish we knew more about the eponymous company. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Russia Company is actually very well-known (it and the companies that followed in its mold made the empire). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not really inherited and it appears to be connected with Russia Court not Russia Row although the article appears to get them mixed up as it cant decide what the subject is. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, Muscovy Company mentions neither Russia Court nor Russia Row. Maybe it doesn't need to. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: It was both, Russia Row contained Russia Court until 1945, when it was entirely destroyed. After it was rebuilt, Russia Court no longer existed. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Very confusing in the article that it is covering more than one place, the article mentions under location that Russia Court exists and uses a 2018 map as a reference! MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1916 OS map as stated. Retrieved from Digimap historic database 2018. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve, Mil-O! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability means something other than a lot of citations to trivial mentions. This has been on a map for over 150 years; the fact that a few primary sources refer to people who live on that street isn't the "significant coverage in reliable sources" necessary to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. GEOROAD explicitly calls out requiring secondary sources, which things like In 1852 probate was granted for the will of James Gilburt, a silk manufacturer of No 4 Russia Row. absolutely are not. The coverage in London Encyclopaedia and "London Street Names" borders on being WP:MILL, and based on current policies, I can't support the idea that virtually every London street (and, then, presumably every major street in every major city) is notable with that level of coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at it like that, then yes, several hundred streets in the centre of old London are all notable, certainly at least 107 of them. And yes this is likely to apply to most western major cities. I see no reason why they should be deleted simply because you think that index entry of a probate is trivial (read the probate itself for the detail) and assume that all other sources also are trivial, additionally, none of the sources identified as important so far are primary, they are secondary sources such as newspapers and The London Encyclopedia (which may actually be a Tertiary source). Most cities in Africa have less available sources than this street or the many others like it. The WP:GEOROAD says streets... are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. which is definitely the situation here. (note GEOROAD does not itself require significant coverage, that is the GNG, though I maintain, and others here state that it meets that also). Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the London Encyclopedia is quite discriminate about what it includes - its entry for Wardour Street fails to mention the Marquee and Oxford Circus gets about two sentences. It just doesn’t print everything and anything! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not buying this, 'it's in The London Encyclopedia, so that means its NOT an encyclopedic topic.' Yes, Wikipedia (trying to be an encyclopedia, here) should have an article, GNG and GEOROAD are met and it's a good topic with many encyclopedic facets, see eg. [31] in The Origin of Roman London. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable source the London Encyclopedia and others. It seems people discounting that source are just looking for an excuse to delete this article for the sake of deletion. If there's in depth coverage by a reliable source, it passes WP:GNG. If you don't like that the source is very extensive on many other related topics, that in no manner negates the coverage this topic has received. --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Details of the archaeological investigation on the north side of the street added. Roman remains found including a Roman street that lies under Russia Row. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't some small road in a minor town. It is part of an historic neighborhood in a major world city. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable road with a variety of reliable sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How would deleting this well-written and well-referenced article benefit the encyclopedia? How would punishing very talented content creators benefit the project? I'm baffled. DrVogel (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Didn't bother to check how the article looked when nominated, but in its current form it clearly meets GNG. — JFG ^talk 23:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Goddam it, now we've got Russian bots interfering in AfD "elections". [32] I guess it had to happen sometime. E Eng 00:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was someone pretending to be Russian; the master is well known. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep -- sources in the article sufficiently establish notability for this historic street. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above reasons. I feel that this might have been nominated just to end the problem of Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Trump Street - a controversy-sparking, ticking time bomb... right where we don't need it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's history is well established and the sources seem sound. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. And trout nominator. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Feces#Synonyms. There's reasonably good consensus here that this should not be a stand-alone article. Beyond that, there's a range of opinions about how best to make it go away. WP:ATD argues against delete, and I've somewhat arbitrarily picked a redirect target. If somebody wants to move the redirect, or mine the old article for material to merge somewhere, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fewmets[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC -- not to mention that the etymological info is entirely unsourced. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it can be sourced, it's a dicdef. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can see the dicdef point somewhat, and am more often on the side of dismissing simple vocabulary terms from WP, I think this term merits an article, especially in an encyclopedia that includes the articles Death threat, Headlight flashing, and Car door. The article's writing certainly wants improvement, and it could be expanded with references to the term's historical use. The etymology is from or parallel with related French terms. Don't have time right now to cite everything, but for the moment, see in the OED fumet and fumishing, in a French dictionary fumées and fumier, and on Google Books fewmets and fumets. Eric ^talk 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the articles you mentioned is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist. The etymology bit I mentioned was really just an afterthought and is really also irrelevant anyway, even if it can be reliably sourced. You say the article could be expanded to include historical uses, but that's for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not resemble a dictionary entry and, even if it did, that wouldn't be a reason to delete. And the topic is notable and so there is plenty more to say about it – see Bodies in the Hunt or The Art of Hunting. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it resembles a dictionary entry – it gives the definition and then a few historic uses of it. But the simple fact that the word has been used doesn't mean it's notable as a word. On the other hand, if you want an article on animal droppings, there's already Spoor (animal). If you think that animal droppings used in hunting could merit an article in addition to Spoor (animal) (which is doubtful; that's such a short article and could easily accommodate more content), such an article most definitely should not be named "Fewmets" because it's an obsolete word itself. And in any case, there's no significant content here to start with. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spoor (animal). There's encyclopedic value here, and likely more in hunting literature, but that T.H. White quotation can't carry an article (and is anyway over-long and needs to be summarized). - On that note, I have removed the spurious fantasy reference - L'Engle artfully using the word "fewmets" to avoid "dragon shit" doesn't make this a frequently-used term in fantastic literature (evidence to the contrary is welcome; I have never seen it and I could tile my yard with fantasy novels). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this being redirected there, but there's really nothing to merge. It's just an archaic term for animal faeces. --Michig (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re spoor It may well just be a dictionary definition, and I could see merging it with another term that refers to droppings in the context of tracking or hunting, such as scat. As Scat is currently a redirect to Feces, we might consider merging Fewmets to a new section -- maybe in Feces#Uses_of_animal_feces -- to distinguish the use of the terms scat and fewmets from the rest of the crap there (sorry, the adolescent in me can't resist) and to present the concept of studying feces for tracking purposes. I don't think the spoor article is the place, as neither the OED nor the AHD makes any mention of droppings in their definitions of that term. Oh, and Elmidae, I have you beat: my pet dragon's cavern walls are tiled with fantasy novels. Eric ^talk 18:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of redirect-target....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to feces, perhaps Feces#Synonyms per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This 'article' is just an archaic version of "in popular culture", i.e. uses of the word Fewmet. Should any articles need to use the word fewmet, it can probably simply be defined in text (e.g. "the hunter followed the fewmets (animal droppings) of his quarry"), or transwikilinked to fewmet, rather than link to an 'article' that merely says the same, plus a grab bag of literary uses. Similarly, Spoor (animal) could probably be eventually merged eventually into an article on animal tracking/hunting/identifying, at which point Fewmet might also redirect there. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kacher[edit]

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much seems to have changed since the previous AFD which concluded that he was not notable. This interview and this book review are the only references cited that approach RS, published since then, but neither are sufficient in my opinion to meet the thresholds of WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR given the obscurity of the sources. My own searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no wiki expert as this is my first entry so please excuse me but for the life of me, I dont understand why Chris Kacher page would be deleted. Our group has used his investment techniques for many years. He's a celebrity of sorts in Japan which is one of 5 countries where his books have been published. He published several books for Wiley & Sons, the first was a bestseller http://amzn.com/0470616539. His CD http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/teardrop-rain/id334012790 has two songs that charted on iTunes https://web.archive.org/web/20130907231525/http://www.music-chart.info/artist/99489/Christian-Casher and here is proof Christian Casher is his stage name: https://store.cdbaby.com/Artist/ChristianCasher and www.christiancasher.com. He helped to confirm element 106 which his team named Seaborgium: http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element.106.html. He has been interviewed on television and radio (one of many egs: https://web.archive.org/web/20110315085843/http://www.ytemagazine.com/articles-interviews/234-chris-kacher). He created the pocket pivot which is in use by us and other investors today: http://stockcharts.com/articles/scanning/2012/08/how-can-i-scan-for-the-pocket-pivot-setup.html. https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/trade-like-an/9780470616536/. Egs of some of his interviews: https://www.equities.com/news/in-the-cockpit-with-the-selfish-investors-an-interview-with-chris-kacher-and-gil-morales. https://player.fm/series/s-and-a-investor-radio-w-slash-frank-curzio-your-best-source-for-finance-investing-and-economics/ep-192-dr-chris-kacher-why-etfs. https://www.jasonhartman.com/cw-275-stock-market-investment-concepts-with-dr-chris-kacher-and-gil-morales/Gericochea (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) — Gericochea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
I worked with Dr. Kacher at UC Berkeley and at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Here's our papers on first discovery of element 110: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037594749400775I first confirmation of discovery of element 106: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1423 which we named Seaborgium after Nobel Laureate Professor Glenn T. Seaborg who was our mentor. He published many other research papers in various nuclear science journals if you google 'C Kacher' such as https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293. He also won the highly prestigious Coryell Award http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster& which made Professor Glenn Seaborg insist he stay on as a graduate student under his guidance at Berkeley. Dr. Kacher then went onto fame as a nuclear physicist turned stock market wizard becoming the all-star trader under legendary investor William O'Neil which results in numerous publications on him including his book "How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market" published by Wiley & Sons.Ambergrain888 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — Ambergrain888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Keep I've been paid to create this article. The entire article is based on secondary sources, and there are others available. His concept is used by traders in real life. Scientist, trader and musician, I think he's "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". For me this nomination looks a bit like punishment for (disclosing) paid editing, but I don't think this is the right thing.. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as far as I know this article fulfill Wikipedia criteria and have reliable references about the person and secondly it's very old article on Wikipedia and many other great administrators have discussed this discussion in the past years, I strongly say keep this article and as per Wikipedia guidelines Truembp (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reason: Though the article is in need of promotional tone cleanup or removal, I think the subject is known for originating a concept worthy of attention. I found that his concept was discussed in Modern Trader magazine, and in TrendFollowing.com by Michael Covel. Recently, an article in MarketWatch discussed his view. He also can be considered as a notable author, co-authored an article in Forbes.com and The Wiley Trading Guide Vol. 2; John Wiley & Sons is the publisher of his books. Someone has to rewrite the article. IYos (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get independent views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice, because an article created by a paid editor, where almost every single comment are by sockpuppets, and the two others are an editor with 39 edits, and the paid editor himself. And seriously it looks like the entire AfD was being orchestrated for profit. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

*Speedy delete with prejudice, as the paid editor behind this is using everything about the article, including this very AFD discussion, to make profit for whoever he's working for. Adding speedy delete template as this is a blatant case of WP:G11, and possibly WP:A7 as well. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Removing this due to me being swayed by a sockpuppet. Sorry. --Kirbanzo (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two votes above are based on prejudices, and not Wikipedia policies. The claims made are questionnable. They want to delete article because I complied with ToU, and disclosed my paid editing. I do not think that this is the right way of handling of paid editing here and that it motivates other paid editors to make a disclosure. I don't appreciate using socks though, and have no relation to them... ps. It is probably worth to mention that the article was created before paid disclosure policy appeared. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pozytyv: I appreciate your position, and am assuming good faith, but if you take on clients that are willing to disrupt Wikipedia to this extent, you should make sure you are least paid before they totally destroy any chance of the job you did surviving. I am not referring to your profit (which is still allowed under the TOU, but not popular) but instead the profit of your client who has clearly paid multiple freelancers to circumvent Wikipedia policy, in a way which is forbidden by the TOU, in order to publish a promotional article for public relation and/or search engine optimisation purposes. Unless you are still being paid, it may be an idea to cut ties here, before people start seriously questioning whether you are an innocent party here. I will point out that although influenced by the disruptive actions here, my viewpoint is based on the WP:NOTPROMOTION policy and compounded by the sock-puppetry, your own paid role in this is currently incidental only and would not on it's own have prompted me to recommend deletion with prejudice, though I would likely have recommended delete on promotional grounds and lack of notability anyway. The sources are not the best and don't really support the article, several are interviews (generally held to be primary sources) and others are incidental mentions. I hope this makes my viewpoint clear. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Delete. The Seaborgium bit is interesting but he was a grad student on the team. It's not a claim to encyclopedic notability in itself. He released some piano compositions, which have been viewed quite a lot on YouTube but haven't been critically reviewed or charted (I read that a remix got airplay in South Africa, but couldn't verify anything towards WP:NMUSIC). On the finance side, his main arena, there's a CNBC appearance but I couldn't find solid independent coverage of him as a subject, book review notwithstanding. In a way that's surprising, but there it is. I also don't see that he originated a significant concept, as one struck vote claims. As I read it, the book in question discussed applying O'Neil's principles, and the 120 year chart says "stock markets move with the news". I agree that this doesn't warrant an article. I've not factored in the pay involved in the editing (and of course it's important that disclosure is encouraged). Mortee (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- for lack of independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A non-notable individual and likely a paid placement. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of credible, valid, and notable sources. --Kirbanzo (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. And perhaps one or more of SK#2/3 (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nunes memo[edit]

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

WP:Not news. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Ctrl+F for "memo" on CNN.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, wsj.com, yahoo.com... any major American news publication, to be honest - you'll find plenty of news. Believe me - Enter Movie (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close. It's been front-page news around the globe for days. Either it will take down the Mueller investigation, or it will be a permanent stain on the House. And the nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS? Please. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The article documents a historically unprecedented series of events and is supported by hundreds, if not thousands of reliable sources. The nominator does not seem to grasp the actual intent behind WP:NOTNEWS. - Mr X 🖋 03:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seriously? Not News, D.C. was going apeshit over this today. If this is undeserving of a wikipedia page, I do not know what is! Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 05:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 05:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close. This article meets and more than fulfills all criteria for article creation. Any problems can be worked out at the article through normal editing. We're long past the "NOTNEWS" phase.

The Steele dossier is part of a serious intelligence investigation.

The Nunes memo is part of a nonsensical GOP conspiracy theory and cover-up.

We document both as very significant documents, of widely different types. History will remember them both. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly meets WP:N and article went to WP:AfD this week and was a speedy close.Casprings (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. massive amounts of news coverage. WP:NOTNEWS if for things like 'stupid criminal stories', "local man saves dog", or "Beyonce to perform tomorrow" stories. Whether this topic eventually gets merged into a larger article or changes name is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the topic is undoubtedly notable per WP:GNG. BeenAroundAWhile surely has been around long enough to know about WP:BEFORE, and the article is full of references, but if more sources are desired, Been Around, please click the first two links after "Find sources" above. This is a bad faith, drive-by nomination, bordering on vandalism. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't speak for anyone else but his entry has already shaped up as a partisan effort to discredit the memo and make the entire exercise look like a GOP plot. That is to say, the entry is, at this critical time when people are looking for reliable information, 100% biased. It should be deleted until such time as a proper entry is put forward. 175.158.49.91 07:09, February 2, 2018 (UTC)
The topic is worthy, but would be best handled within the article Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or one of its child articles about mass surveillance, given how tightly connected those matters are. Nemo 07:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close. This was very recently discussed here, and nothing has changed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close per Casprings and Anarchyte. Master of Time (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sync.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH The sources are 1: company website, 2: passing mention, 3: business directory, 4: a review of product, 5: an article about the company when it was a startup that says "Here’s a startup that can be successful, and if all claims it’s making are indeed true, Dropbox and Google should take note." 6: routine coverage, 7: PR article with quotes from company personnel, 8: company blog, 9: company website Dom from Paris (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best of the provided sources are probably the TechvibesNewsdesk and CloudStorageBoss review of product features. Elsewhere the product is mentioned in comparative discussions (e.g. [33]), including recommendations in a Cloudwards comparative review. Considered as a company, I don't see the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH; considered as a product, it may be a closer call given these product reviews, but still too slight in WP:RS coverage for WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails CORPDEPTH. Not good enough for SOFT per AllyD. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm working on this article, including hopefully adding better sources — AllenAdam76 07:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Sterling United Methodist Church. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Regional Arts Center[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search fails to find substantial references to the center other than a small handful of events listings noting it as a venue. Chetsford (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Chetsford has failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A tip off is that in the article it says "the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places". FloridaArmy (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOFEAT National Historic Landmarks are inherently notable and non-landmark NRHP properties can be notable provided "verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available". Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places registrstion documents don't establish notability? Can you point me to where that consensus was reached? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just directed you to our policy regarding WP:GEOFEAT, above. According to it "verifiable information beyond simple statistics" must be available. The article [34] is sourced to the website of a local soapmaking convention and a chamber of commerce site which just lists its street address. If you have something more detailed or complex, though, I'd strongly encourage you to add it. As I described, I was unable to locate a WP:RS offering greater depth of coverage but it's possible you might have some I didn't find. Chetsford (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with the existing article at Mount Sterling United Methodist Church. The building is on the NRHP registry; the registration form can be read here. It's notable. The current use of the building as an arts center is verifiable and relevant to the building (e.g. [35][36]; there's also a detailed article here which is a blog but may qualify as reliable expert-written material under WP:SPS.) I don't think we need two articles, so we should merge them together under whatever title the editors like best, with redirects from the others. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and withdraw delete nomination per Arxiloxos's reasoning. Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IOTA (technology)[edit]

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

This is going to be a difficult one, where people are going to angry. This is not a WP article. If you go through this very carefully, you will see that it is almost entirely sourced from a) very low quality blogs: b) churnalism c) actual press releases: d) forbes contributors and the like; or e) nothing. For example, Crytography section cites 3 scientific papers, none of which mention Iota, then a press release, then some usergenerated comments on Gitub. This is what i mean. We are getting a ton of hype and promotion in WP about cryptocurrencies, much of from people who hold the currency and are looking to abuse our openness to pump up their currencies. This is what you get. This needs to be razed. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Jytdog. In particular, the cryptography section contains misleading statements and citations. The overall tone of the article is clearly marketing, not a neutral description. Cdcdb (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before deletion an attempt should be made to find more relevant sources. Instead of deletion i would recommend publishing a more balanced viewpoint of IOTA as well as updating source material in accordance with wikipedia rules. I would recommend ammending or partial deletion of sections related to cryptography over complete deletion of this article. "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaglutamate (talk • contribs) (an WP:SPA account, comment refactored) Widefox; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it passes WP:OTHERSTUFF over many of the other crypto-coins (note [37]), and [38] is some (very recent) significant coverage that isn't in the trade press. I agree that much of the existing content is promotional hype that should be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the history you will see that i started trimming... i got to a place where i saw nothing left, and backed out. I am not opposed to there being an article, but this needs to be nuked. When we are at a place where an article needs to be rewritten from scratch, it is time to delete per TNT/GII and let someone build it new. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in AfD. Widefox; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been trimmed, contains some notable sources. IOTA is currently ranked 11th per Coinmarketcap.com which in its own makes it a notable crypto. prokaryotes (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article mainly reads like a commercial for not only the product, but the people behind the product as well. The authors of the article repeatedly removed criticism and controversy sections. The article does not accurately describe the technology that IOTA currently is. Pgdr (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Above user made exactly the one comment above. While there are indeed COI issues from past editors, those content is almost all gone, except for the Foundation section. If you follow-up the links from the new Reception section you can read about drama and possible Off-Wikipedia COI-issues. prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section is exactly what is wrong with this page in WP. We have there ~~a Forbes contributor piece,~~ some blog, and the self-serving "response" from the Iota Foundation. If there are not independent refs of decent quality that discuss all of this, it should not be in WP. That whole section is a work of SYN as well. No section should be built this way - we summarize what secondary sources say. It is ok to use primary sources to fill in around the edges, but not to build narratives this way. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC) (strike per below Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The IOTA response is exactly what you mention, a primary source, same for the security expert blog who found the vulnerability. Then there is a German magazine link (in German), and another primary source from MIT, and a Forbes article. The NASDAQ reference, cited elsewhere, also uses the same content. NASDAQ, German magazine, Forbes are secondary sources. There are many more from other cryptocurrency related websites. prokaryotes (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added Coindesk and NASDAQ references to address above concerns. prokaryotes (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above argument that the Forbes article was written by a Forbes contributer, is false - written by Forbes Staff. prokaryotes (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error. Yes that is Forbes staff and OK. The Nasdaq ref is bloggy so not great, but independent and probably OK (what you write about it, The NASDAQ reference, cited elsewhere, also uses the same content., is just.... bizarre. What are you talking about?) If by the "german source" you mean this, that is an informal, chatty blog. Really low quality. The rest of the claims are incorrect.

Way too much of this article is garbage-sourced and this is clearly because a) there are not enough high quality, independent refs and b) way too many advocates are trying to pad this.

It is clear that even with "rescue efforts" underway, there are not enough high quality independent sources to write an article - it is TOOSOON and all the poor quality editing based on poor quality sources is not going to change that. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Can you clarify your claim that the section is written as per WP:SYN, or do you retract that too? 2) AFD is not done by cherry picking an article section. 3) In your reason for AFD you wrote almost entirely sourced from a) very low quality blogs: b) churnalism c) actual press releases: d) forbes contributors However, those arguments are moot after recent article edits. prokaryotes (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stringing stuff together using primary sources is SYN. With regard to the rest, please see my last reply which was indeed written after the "rescue" efforts. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you missed the updates which include primary sources and secondary sources. However, besides this distraction. IOTA is among the most valued cryptocurrencies per Bloomberg (as in a lot of trading), and according to this post from the Cryptocurrency Task Force meets notability. prokaryotes (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to quantify, here is the page now. it has 17 refs.

directly from Iota: refs 3, 4, 8, 17
primary/SPs from somebody else: ref 14
point of data about marketcap (useless for N discussions): ref 1
press release/churnalism: ref 2/9 (basically same, but 2 adds shilling to buy a research report) 5, (very blatant churnalism), 6, 7 (so much hype there!), 10 (actually a press release), 11
stock price chasing low quality bloggy news (we are NOTNEWS): 13, 16
kind of decent refs: 12 (nasdaq), 15 (forbes)

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how you assess a reference for a crptocurrency article. Whitepaper and github link are per Infobox, and used as a primary source, see other cryptos. Marketcap per Cryptocurrency Task Force is indeed a notable reference. 13 and 16 are the NASDAQ and Forbes reference you mention as decent..... Please make yourself more familiar with references commonly used at Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple etc. prokaryotes (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how we assess notability in WP - there are no walled gardens here and no way will we have one for cryptocurrencies; if folks at that project are advocating to become a walled garden we will have to nominate that project for deletion.

I will not be replying to you further, as this is just the anticipated advocacy clutter. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are moot, you retracted your Forbes point, base your decisions on whitepaper links and such. At this point you should retract your AFD (if possible?), or vote with keep. prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just looked at the page on cryptocurrency notabilty you cited; it was edited one time, three years ago, and is watched by less than 30 people (page info). Not compelling; not even worth MfDing. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly we need such a page, and until we don't have something better, that page seems pretty spot on, even after three years. Also see this post for crypto RS.prokaryotes (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force/notability looks like very WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cryptocurrency_Notability. Widefox; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much "discussed" as "dismissed outright". See here. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~userify~~ / Draftify / AfC if say User:Prokaryotes wants to address the concerns here and rewrite based on more RS like Forbes and NASDAQ. That would save it being a WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you looked at the recent changes, article has been rewritten already, contains many reliable sources. If the Wikipedia Community Consensus wants to delete this page they should delete every other crypto article as well, since they use similar sources (CoinTelegraph, Whitepapers etc). I do not plan to substantially edit the page, no need for that. prokaryotes (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at all of them, but there are many that are much better sourced and better written than this. With the lack of independent RS for this subject, that is not surprising. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of the recent sources, and I have neutrality concerns as tagged. One appeared to be a primary source too. Widefox; talk 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Prokaryotes my offer to userify to you seems to have been too subtle. I've reconsidered due to this being detrimental in article space until its shown notable and fixed, and as you seem to disagree with what the N consensus is, AfC -> Draft -> Delete is my revised preference. WP:BLUDGEON is also worth a read. Widefox; talk 20:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes, the argument "should delete every other crypto article as well" is WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFF, market cap (which varies by factors weekly) and rankings are WP:ARBITRARY - all arguments to avoid at AfD. Widefox; talk 03:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashAwake (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC) — CrashAwake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Jytdog, maybe shift focus away from COI, arguments, edit wars and proposing deletions, particularly controversial ones like this, you are on your last warning after all.

  '...an indefinite ban from discussing any COI of editors '

  'This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I regard false accusation as personal attacks. Be warned. The Banner talk 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)'

   On 27 June 2016 I was blocked for violating WP:OUTING in the course of doing COI work, and that block was lifted on 8 August 2016 with an indefinite ban from discussing any COI of editors (see unblock notice for details), which was appealable in six months and every six months thereafter. I appealed in February 2017 and the TBAN was lifted. ARCA discussion archived here; notice given to me here.'

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:46, 4 February 2018‎ (talk • contribs) CrashAwake (UTC) — CrashAwake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He can say whatever he wants, look a my talk page, he wrote, WP's articles on cryptocurrencies have been beset by people adding badly sourced or unsourced promotional content. Your edits reflect this tendency. In my opinion, at this point, it is more efficient to promote Jytdog to administrator. Nobody is going to ban him, from my experience here, he is untouchable. prokaryotes (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominems don't advance your argument, quite the opposite as offtopic clutter, especially when replying to a disruptive uncivil SPA. Widefox; talk 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I still see enough serious issues like improper use of primary, that it might be beneficial to have this article pass through AfC, especially as it has a history of COI editing - my understanding is any article like this is required to go through the AfC process anyway? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly my conclusion - AfC for review by non-COI would be doubly useful. Widefox; talk 20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes this article has a long list of issues but the fact that so many neutral websites mention it (reliable or not) proves notability, biased content can always be replaced, but that doesn't warrent a full deletion of the entire article. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Sockpuppets 🎭) (Articles 📚) 22:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That "so many" websites mention this is utterly immaterial, either for assessing notability or sourcing an article: actual, in-depth attention from reliable sources is what counts. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trung That argument is so far off what is required here, please read WP:AFD and WP:N, WP:RS. This is not a vote (a !vote) - it is the weight of your argument based in policy that counts. Saying that, yes there is WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. It is RS rather than "(reliable or not)" that matter here. Including "not" means one cannot count on a single one being reliable. Widefox; talk 02:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cryptocurrencies are now a dime a dozen, and nothing in the article gives the slightest indication of how this one is notable. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not the only grounds for deletion here, all this advocacy in the face of our standards makes me question if this is also failing WP:NOTPROMO, giving it a second reason to delete even if notable. Widefox; talk 02:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on the basis of borderline notability and clear promotionalism. The references are basically PR, plus some financial notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)#Chanelle. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chanelle McCleary[edit]

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

Notability, lack of. If this person is deemed notable ten Wikipedia' notability guidelines need serious attention. Looking at the article history it has been changed to a redirect to List of Big Brother 18 housemates (User:Boleyn) & Ex on the Beach (series 6)) (User:Lauren's World). I guess that the possibility of either being suitable will be the argument for notability, but thew truth about these TV programs is that appearance on then is actual proof of lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bang goes that argument for notabity, since both are redlinks.... I rest my case.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, the links above are wrong but the articles are there: List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)#Chanelle and Ex on the Beach (series 6). Both redirects are a clear WP:ATD. She would also potentially meet WP:ENT #1 (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.) She has been a significant part of 2 different notable TV shows ('Big Brother' and 'Ex on the Beach'), and also appeared on 3 other notable shows ('Take Me Out', 'Dating in the Dark' and 'Dinner Date'. It's hard to judge what would count as 'significant' though. Many Ex on the Beach participants (Jemma Lucy, Stephen Bear etc.) meet WP:NOTABILITY, as do dozens of Big Brother participants. Also lots of them don't and are good redirects. I'm not sure there's the coverage we need for a standalone article. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]

Keep? - I mean, there's sources for days ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]) I... might personally think that reality TV is a cancer on society that should be cut out and cauterized. I... might not personally understand why anyone would subject themselves to reading these sources for fun... But there's reams of the stuff. GMG ^talk 16:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. One or two of the sources (eg. the Express) I wouldn't use, but there is sufficient coverage for WP:BASIC and a good argument for WP:ENT #1. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could clarify that I'm not saying these are the best sources as I thoroughly vetted all the ones available, because I didn't. I kindof of just started copy/pasting as an example because there's just that many of them. GMG ^talk 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the media world there are hundreds of thousands of people who have their 15 minutes of fame. The ref's are no more than advertorial's to promote the Big Brother house TV programs etc. There is no WP notability here. Aspro (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a common-or-garden Who?—someone who's a bit famous in a kind of self-perpetuating way but a bit famous nonetheless. Accordingly there's coverage out there, mostly tabloid but verifying at least her appearances and the fact that there's interest in her. People will ask us "who is she?" and we might as well have a straight forward answer, as we do. On the other hand, there is a kind of perpetual WP:SPIP machine at work between certain kinds of celebrity, magazines, advertisers and readers, but at a certain point it becomes self-sustaining and the way our article is written I don't see it as fueling the engine either way. Since she's known for appearances on more than one of these shows, redirecting to a section on one of them in particular wouldn't be right structurally. Mortee (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- accomplishments such as "In 2018, she starred in an episode of the Channel 5 reality show, Celebrity 100% Hotter, alongside Honey G" do not help to meet WP:ENT, and there's nothing better. The coverage is tabloid and / or routine for these types of shows. No evidence of cult following either. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In ictu oculi, what are your reasons for voting delete? Boleyn (talk)

Comment With two clear WP:ATDs, I can't see any reason for someone voting delete rather than redirect. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Myopathy GMG ^talk 07:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)#Chanelle. This seems to be primarily what she's known for. If she maintains notability for anything else, we can always restore what's in the history. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Insufficient notability for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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