Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 January	13 January >

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 speedy keep. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius Joyette[edit]

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

No clear indication of any significant roles; WP:NACTOR suggests we need two. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rubin's incorrect assertion. We have actual articles about numerous shows in which this individual plays a notable role. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said "significant", not "notable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of roles mentioned; if you name two which are actually significant, I'll withdraw the nomination. At most one of the three roles mentioned in the lead is significant, and I'm not sure about Digrassi. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least two of the main roles mentioned have Wikipedia articles which note this individual as a "main character". Do your own research before wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. She has significant roles in insignificant series; and the guideline is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 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. Although opinion is divided as concerns delete or merge, one "merge" opinion would also support deletion and the two others don't really address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 12:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K7033/7034 Harbin-Heihe Through Train[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Articles should instead exist for the lines that the train runs on (one exists; the other doesn't and should be translated from the zhwiki article). Jc86035 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and K7035/7036 Harbin-Heihe Through Train and 4031/4032 Harbin-Heihe Through Train to Harbin-Heihe Through Train. A walled-garden created by a user who was blocked for personal attacks immediately after creating these pages. [1] does list all three routes. But Wikipedia never has articles per-numbered-route, not on trains or buses or airplanes. Deleting the whole lot (per WP:TNT) as under-referenced traincruft is also an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(after the relist) There are apparently about 350 articles on bus routes, a third of them for bus routes in London. Jc86035 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke. I meant different numbered trains on the same route. All of the many buses per day on London Buses route 13 are the same number, there's only one number for the route as a whole. These are three trains on the same route with three different numbers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and delete the two similar articles as well. Agree that there lacks evidence of notability. Also not a through train, by the definition in that article. Just a set of 3 pairs of trains that provide service between two cities. If we were to look at all the different terminus-to-terminus services that are provided by China Railways, this would probably be in the many hundreds, few that would be notable. I see that in Chinese Wikipedia they do have some articles for a collection of train numbers that serve the same route, for example one article for all the trains serving Beijing-Shanghai high speed in addition to the one for the line itself. So perhaps a Harbin–Heihe train service if merge. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm reluctant to support deletion in topic areas that still need development, including coverage of countries where we are limited by the availability of English language sources - I think China is one of those topics, so some leeway should be given, but there is no need for three articles about roughly the same thing. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SeraphWiki's comments. 2Q (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Heights, but instead add passing mentions added on either end of the services, rather than a new article about the service itself. Nightfury 14:04, 15 January 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Strike[edit]

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

Does not appear indepedently notable from The Ten Tenors. Some coverage as an individual in theatre websites, but not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have enough independent, reliable coverage to meet GNG. Merge wouldn't be appropriate given the number of members in the Ten Tenors. He has a Cairns Post article on him from 2001 and a Courier Mail/Herald Sun article on him from 2004, among others. Also has numerous interviews and profiles separate from his Tenors role on various independent, albeit niche, sources online. Kb.au (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Ten Tenors. Not enough to justify an independent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage for a WP:BLP. The article states, "best known as being one of the original members of "The Ten Tenors" (minor one time wonder), and there are 46 other "former" members. The 24 word (prose) article will just remain a poorly sourced carrer stub. PLEASE do not merge. This often results in a blue link. The reasoning is that someone will want to "blue link all 57 names (ten current but that changes) and the band members that will be BLP links just linking back to the The Ten Tenors article that is an on-going issue on other articles. There is not enough notability per reliable sources for this subject. Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:49, 12 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Madat Khan[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unsourced. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

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

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

Delete In a case like this leaving out the title Raja could maybe prove useful, so I tried the above alternative searches. I found no book sources on Madat Khan|Bratla or Madat Khan|Koi, which surprises me. There is a whole lot on Madat Khan alone, but I can't figure out which, if any, are relevant to this person, and which are false positives. I can't even figure out when this person lived. Could there be sources in Urdu? Could an editor with more familiarity with the subject area do a better job? As it is now, it fails WP:V. Delete per WP:DEL7. Sam Sailor 09:09, 13 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan (soldier)[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Störm (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did Khan really receive the Victoria Cross? Did he receive the Nishan-e-Haider? If he got the VC or if he got the Nishan-e-Haider and it is the highest Pakistani award, then he passes WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comment: I couldn't find any reliable sources for him receiving the Victoria Cross although it appears he did receive the Indian Distinguished Service Medal, per [2][3]. Is it possible he has been confused with Sher Shah (VC)? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible on the confusion. When I was Googling, I clicked on a Sher Shah link. The ref cited in the article, btw, appears to be on a forum. The picture?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominated for deletion on Commons. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have updated my comment now as the claims about receiving the highest level awards do not appear to be verified, and I haven't been able to find significant coverage to indicate notability. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He certainly didn't win the VC. Possible confusion with Sher Shah, who did. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Could it be a hoax / confused article, since the VC claim does not check out? In any case, better off deleted for lack of sources and per WP:V concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 16 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Focus[edit]

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

An advocacy organization. Promotional article, little in the article to indicate notability per WP:GNG. The generic name makes it difficult to find sources. The leader, Bruce Lesley, is occasionally cited in political news articles, but that's his job given the nature of his organization. There seems to be little in reliable sources about the organization as such, as opposed to the political issues they address. Sandstein 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom - article seems promotional, lacks sources Thalium (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced WP:ADVOCACY for a nn org. Basically, org spam; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 18 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hongyuan Zha[edit]

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

Created in apparent violation of the terms of use by known undeclared paid editor -- see [4] He is notable, so someone without a coi might want to eventually write an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I can't get the link you made to work. What is Wikipedia policy for dealing with notable article subjects added by paid editors? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, I fixed the link. Paid editing is begrudgingly accepted, undisclosed paid editing is not. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I read the linked discussion. Is there a community consensus that creations of paid editors can be deleted (at least as long as significant editing by others hasn't taken place)? Surely this happens fairly often? I support Delete as a paid advertisement, even though the copy isn't overwhelmingly advertorial its creation is. But I would like to know what the established guidelines and precedents are when these subjects come up. I know I've voted to keep articles created by suspected paid editors if the articles were good and the subject was notable. If undisclosed paid editing isn't accepted then certainly it should be deleted. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally aware of a consensus specifically endorsing deletion of undisclosed paid articles that are notable, perhaps DGG, Primefac, or Kudpung would know. However, as the edits have been made in violation of wikipedia's terms of use, those edits can certainly be removed. If another unpaid editor endorses the edits, then it becomes a bit of a grey area, but that has not happened in this case. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has become acceptable but not obligatory practice to delete articles by undeclared paid editors regardless of notability. Some admins do it at Speedy, on the assumption that the paid editor is almost certainly the sock of an earlier paid banned editor, though we cannot be certain which. And we can delete at AfD for any good reason that has consensus, including such things as NOT HERE, which means not here to contribute according to the rules, but in contempt of them. I only have started doing it after others have been doing it unchallenged for many months. If the TOU mean anything, it means that contributions made in deliberate violation of them are not permitted. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the counter argument is that we should do what makes the encyclopedia better and that an article created by a paod editor me be on a notable subject, well written, and well sourced. If an editor in good standing is willing to review it carefully and make sure it's neutrally written, includes and notable controversies, and is free from advertorial content that would be a reason for keep unless the point is to punish paid editors. But I don't think we are suppoaed to be pointy? In this case I support deletion. I think I already said that.. If so I stand by it. Thanks for the discussion and explanations. Helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, as I said before, if another editor decides to review and 'endorse' the content, then the deletion argument becomes a grey area (though the content was still created in violation of the ToU, so really it should be deleted and rewritten anyway). At that point WP:B1G1F comes into effect though, which we should not be encouraging. Some amount of WP:POINTYness is necessary if we intend to have any control over undisclosed paid editing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of ToU, and must be made an example of. Delete but do not salt in case someone in the future, unconnected with the subject, has the idea of creating a new one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made in violation of the ToU. No significant other authors. Don't salt but do not issue a WP:REFUND. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 15 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Downers Grove, Illinois[edit]

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

Neither source cited supports that "East Downers Grove" exists or ever existed. The creator of the article may have mistaken this place for Downers Grove, Illinois. GNIS lists Downers Grove, with a variant name of "East Grove". Google brings back nothing for "East Downers Grove". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse pagemove from Gostyn, Illinois and revert to September 16 revision IP/low edit account trying to play pretend and divide up a suburban city into an 'east' community when nobody calls it that (IP tries to point out that 'nobody calls it Gostyn' now but history just doesn't evaporate), but the historical info about Gostyn is at least legit as a historical settlement eventually absorbed into Downers Grove. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Ah yes. I will remove my Afd. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Crompton[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources to suggest this person is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's quoted here and I did find an occasional mention but not much. Doesn't appear to me to satisfy notability standards. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. So we do not create articles based on personal websites of a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. = paul2520 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray[edit]

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

Article that has been around since at least 2006 when split from the main article was prodded with the rationale: "Completely unsourced trivia". It is partially internally sourced. I'm not taking a strong stand on whether it should stay but be cleaned up or deleted entirely, but I think it needs discussion. LadyofShalott 21:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder, everything here is unsourced and useless trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable trivia. Somebody had way, way, way too much time on their hands and mostly decided to categorize every(?) character in the book as real or made up. This is about as useful for analysis as listing which pages start with "A" or "The". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessive listcruft and original research. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fun fact, the same editor who added all this information in 2005, had at one point created separate articles for each chapter of the book. It looks like once they realized their attempts to turn Wikipedia into CliffsNotes wasn't going to be welcome, they stopped editing the encyclopedia. — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yah, I reckon 2005 was kind of the tail end of Wikipedia's early years, when its purpose and scope was still not quite set in stone. Maybe back then a huge CliffsNotes analogue was still possible. But I'm glad we didn't go that way. Reyk _YO! 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. I'm sure that a similar list could be compiled for many novels; what is so special about Dorian Gray?TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 15 January 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. However, cleanup to ensure compliance with WP:BLP would be a worthwhile endeavour. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Swingland[edit]

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

I am Ian Swingland. I want the page concerning me deleted. I don't want a debate or discussion but the page struck off. It has become the target of constant editing by one person and as a donor to Wikipedia I believe I should have my wishes respected. One of your administrators keeps editing my page with conjecture and newspaper's hyperbole put up by others. He describes himself as an inclusionist but I and my legal team take a different view. The outcome of a trial I suffered last winter is shrouded by an injunction and what has happened subsequently is tittle-tattle and gossip in the press. Mark Twain said "If you don't read newspapers you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianswingland (talk • contribs)

Keep. The subject is described as a "world-renowned conservation professor"[5] and "renowned conservationist" (by the Times no less[6]) who was accused of being involved in a tax-dodging scheme. That can't be just conveniently swept under the rug. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to article subjects not wanting to be included, but in this case your objection isn't to being included but to facts about a widely reported on $60 million tax dodge. If it is only an allegation there are grounds for removal but if it's been established in courts and / or resulted in actions taken by notable agencies it seems wrong to engage in censorship. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're all missing the point. The judge put an injunction over publishing and dissemination of matters concerning the trial precipitated by highly inaccurate and prejudicial press reports September 2017. The Court may take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianswingland (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are missing the point. While anyone in the UK is certainly bound by UK jurisdiction, outside the UK editors are not. Secondly except under extreme circumstances the judge is hardly likely to be able to restrict publishing of already published material (from 2016, still available on the telegraph website). If he had, the telegraph would have been required to remove it. Wikipedia works on already published information. And as a friendly notification, stay away from any wording implying legal action on your part against Wikipedia editors. Otherwise you will find your ability to edit here swiftly restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remain unconvinced that his actions rise to the level that requires us to have an article on him, and if they are not at that level there is no harm in deleting the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was started over seven years ago. Swingland seems notable so it's a keep. The wording about the tax dodge could be softened, though. YoPienso (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, as someone who obviously far exceeds our notability requirements on many levels. I would add that, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ian Swingland we should not imply that we know why his OBE was withdrawn without a reliable source saying why. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes GNG, given he has commited no crime cut back on the tax avoidance stuff Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a financial donor to Wikipedia does not give anyone any editing priviledges. Legal threats are banned in Wikipedia. Swingland should have known that autobiographies are likely to cause critical remarks in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.90 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete pages at the subject's request, even if they're donors. If someone's adding libelous remarks, they can be dealt with, but the solution is not to delete the page. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you suggest we deal with editors who add content that defies WP:BLPCRIME? By adding such content you are making it seem that the only way to deal with the problems here is to delete the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Venable[edit]

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

Apparently was mayor of Sullivan County, Tennessee. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES says county level legislators are not automatically notable. Yes there are some local sources name dropping him for a quote about local issues but I'm having trouble sourcing in-depth coverage about him. He was a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, don't know whether that implies any automatic notability, WP:BIO suggests that it doesn't. Mattg82 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep NPASR Nominator hasn't prepared the nomination enough to know if members of the Tennessee House of Representatives are presumed notable. Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The nominator actually made the arguement to keep. He's notable as a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives. as per WP:NPOL #1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO is actually quite broad and vague about very general principles of biographical notability — which is why we have a substantial body of more detailed subject-specific inclusion standards (SNGs) for specific occupations in addition to BIO itself. The applicable one for politicians is WP:NPOL, which states in #1 that we do accept state legislators as notable. This does need a rewrite and some real sourcing, but he does pass our inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Please note the "External links" I removed was an advertisement redirect and of course not acceptable as a reference even if viable. Important: The notability guidelines This page in a nutshell; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is no inherited notability (automatic or not) and all articles, especially BLP's, have to have the above mentioned sources, no matter how much we like an article, per Wikipedia:NRVE. I provided a primary source (as apposed to an unsourced article) but be advised that the nominator was not unjustified even if knowing there was primary sourcing for his term in the State Legislature. Like it or not having unsourced or poorly sourced BLP's violates at least one of the Five Pillars that includes a host of policies and guidelines and even relevant community-backed essays. If we really want the article it needs proper sourcing or we will have to hope a closer will accept a "keep" head count only" regardless of a lack of sourcing and policy. Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comments: If the subject here is the same "Richard S. Venable", according to other primary sources, he apparently reclaimed the office of Mayor.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was improved by adding sources. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Child Trafficking Now[edit]

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

May be a scam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FseTO9PsHdc Doesnt appear to exist as an organisation any more, though the walks mentioned do seem to have happened. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether its a scam or not IDC< but I think it passes the GNG per multiple news articles.L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG; coverage is passing mentions or self-promotion. The coverage includes: KQED-Dec 14, 2016: "Clark Stuart and his Global Trident companies were prominently affiliated with a now-shuttered national nonprofit, Stop Child Trafficking Now, which came under scrutiny for massive fundraising and large payments to Stuart's private companies, with few results. But Clark Stuart continued to snag business ..." Not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive coverage indeed. BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and WP:NORG. Refbombing to show notability. A quick look found three of the links are dead and one is to a general site that has nothing to do with the subject. The name existed but I cannot find anything current or anything past the 2011 controversey. Not enough notability to even finish (in detail) an article because there is a lack of significant coverage which is the scam part. Otr500 (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. This outfit is now defunct, it didn't last long, and principals may have been keeping some or more of the funds they raised for themselves. Nevertheless, SCTN got quite a lot of coverage in 2009-10, articles nationwide covering fundraising marches in many cities, and coverage of efforts at raising money and recruit staff on a program of tracking down child traffickers to turn them in for prosecution - no evidence that they accomplished much more than fundraising and getting reporters to cover them. But WP:SIGCOV coverage does exist. Plus WP:HEYMANN I added a bit of what's out there to the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Happy to withdraw the suggestion that it should be deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 19 January 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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maguire (digital artist)[edit]

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

I can't see where the artist meets WP:GNG. He is mentioned in a book about electronic literature, but the rest of the references are from blogs, the artist himself, or an interview with the artist. So he wrote some electronic literature works and some "number of scripts which were picked up for production" What does that mean? And now he's working in the video game industry? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent reliable sources found. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did do some interesting things, but the coverage of those things does not rise to the point where notability is established. Of the sources given, two are interviews and two are essentially encyclopedia entries. It's not enough.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:22, 16 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gough[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional tone. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Sources are promotional with company second party advertisement, passing or trivial mentions, or is just insignificant. There is no individual notability, failing WP:NACTOR with only bit-parts in three movies and one of those is in post-production. Eckim and DOPE fail WP:CORPDEPTH and the company relationship is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 16 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saltman[edit]

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

Reason Montaukwarrior (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC) This is a blatant biography with severe notability issues. Should be removed.[reply]

- Hi, do you have any connection to Daniel Saltman positive or negative as your account is a single purpose one, devoted to deleting this article? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is an autobiography I won't be voting for it to remain Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per norm. does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not supposed to be Linkedin. Which is one key reason we need to require use of real names as usernames, and make it so all articles have to have someone else besides the creator approve them to start to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 15 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shafie Ayar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY; already deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Shafie Ayar (2nd nomination). Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article indicates notability, and I can find no sources that help. The book written by the subject is obviously not an independent source and it is also self-published. Any possible notability would seem to be in the United States so if the subject was notable I would expect sources to be available in English. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 17 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webb Mountain Park[edit]

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

Municipal park that has no notability and fails WP:GNG. Only taking to AFD since it was previously WP:PRODed. Rusf10 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment to Nomination- The article also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL--Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is no explanation of why NOTTRAVEL is relevant. I looked at WP:NOTTRAVEL and see nothing relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything relevant about 90% of your comments here, but I digress. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and being that most of the sources being found for this article are travel guides, the topic clearly falls under that designation. "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The post's ad hominem doesn't successfully hide the post's use of inapplicable policy to discount WP:RS.

As for the cited policy, is "Webb Mountain Park" the notable location? If so, the post has stipulated that the topic of the AfD is notable. Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut the WP:WIKILAWYERING crap. The location's coverage is limited to guide books. While they may be considered a reliable source, it still falls under what Wikipedia is not.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidebooks are okay, and the coverage is guidebooks except for the coverage that is not guidebooks, such as regional planning documents such as 61 page report cited below, which is surely a reliable source for some information. Or is any coverage about a park deemed to be a guidebook? --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The report is a great reliable source, but unfortunately it does nothing to establish notability since it is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. As a government report it is not independent. WP:GNG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the three pages about the park in "Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988", cited below, are dismissed why? Because while that doesn't sound like a travel-style guidebook, it sounds like a comprehensive reliable source about woodlands, as a reference-type work it can be deemed a guide to the topic area, so it should be dismissed? I'm sorry, but comments here seem to be trying to kick sand on anything put forward. I'd say "disingenuous" but I'd have to look that up. --Doncram (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and improve. This article needs some TLC. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

any policy based argument for keeping?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite well known in the local area among rock climbers as a great training area and it's integration of natural education into the local school curriculum is also unique in the area. These are notable areas that this article needs to be expanded on, not deleted because they are not yet developed, from the bit of research I did on the park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [was "Keep"] It's a park. Parks are more or less natural features and public facilities. This is a short nice article with photo and sourcing, fixed up after a long-ago prod. The article is quite old and helpful to have in wikipedia, no reason to delete. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policy makes parks inherently notable? They are not natural features, but man-made designations. The arguments that it is old (see WP:OLDARTICLE and helpful(see WP:USEFUL) are really poor arguments to make.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons noted by Rusf10 Burley22 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [was "Merge", probably to Monroe, Connecticut."] It is a municipal park, created in 1972, of that municipality, and it would be perfectly appropriate to be covered there. I don't see the point of dropping the article, and I would prefer to see guidebooks and other sources prove well enough to keep it outright. But there's no reason to delete it fully; we should search for alternatives to deletion; merge/redirect to the municipality article at a minimum is better. Also if more coverage turns up later, the article can be restored with edit history intact, properly crediting the original editors. --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to "Keep" based on User:FloridaArmy's arguments below, including that they have verified it has substantial coverage in offline sources, reportedly including three pages in "Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988." This is as expected, that there would exist coverage. An article does not have to include any sources at all, we just need to have reasonable expectation that substantial sources do exist. Here there is now assertion, which I accept on good faith, that specific such sources do exist. For other parks, even where the sources are not specifically known, there should be strong presumption that such sources do exist.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey, similar AFD about another park, also nominated by deletion-nominator here. I fear a deluge. --Doncram (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is an important and significant 640 acre park that includes a notable rock formation used by climbers as well as trails that connect up to a 13.5 mile network. The park and adjacent discovery center are important sites of biological study and the parkhas been documented in reliable soirces as an important home to native flora. The park has also been the site of well documented biological control efforts. The site is also well covered for its trails and trail improvements done by community members. Plenty of coverage. Just for its role as an important rock climbing area it is noted here, for example, with subatantial coverage of the clinbing opportunities it offers as well as its significant geological features which are notable even apart from the site being notable and signicant as a rock climbing site. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore its discussed here as part of an important historic architectural preservation and land conservation effort. "He wants to create a community centered around equestrian interests with trails, stables and paddocks for horses. There would also be access for the non-horse owning set to rent horses, take riding lessons and ride through trails that would connect with Webb Mountain Park and the Webb Mountain Discovery Center, which back up to the property and contain more than 640 acres." In what alternate universe is a ~~640~~ 135 acre park that is part of 640 acres of protected lands, that functions as an important biological preserve, geologic feature, hiking amenity, discovery center area, natural rock climbing area, study area, and cultural feature now warrant inclusion in the "sum of all knowledge"? If it's not notable how did I find all of this out about it from a plethora of reliable sources in just a few minutes? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that source is the historical building is NOT in the park, it is next to the park. The article has nothing more than a mere mention of connecting a trail to the park. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I argue its notability was inherited? It is covered substantially in reliable independent sources. That's just one of many examples where it's noted and discussed. Happens to be part of an ongoing and important preservation, conservation, and recreational development plan which I note is in addition to all the other coverage of its signicance in a variety of roles. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Webb+mountain+park"+connecticut&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA6tjwqtjYAhUE5oMKHUcnD4YQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=%22Webb%20mountain%20park%22%20connecticut&f=false photographed here and in lots of guide books such as "Webb+mountain+park"+connecticut&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA6tjwqtjYAhUE5oMKHUcnD4YQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=%22Webb%20mountain%20park%22%20connecticut&f=false here. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988 devotes three pages to the park. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does one cite pdfs such as [www.ctert.org/pdfs/Monroe_WebbMtnExt_330.pdf this one]? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ctert.org/pdfs/Monroe_WebbMtnExt_330.pdf is a working link to that PDF file, a 2005 report which has substantial information about the park. It strikes me that a municipal park as big as 640 acres (2.6 km²) (park plus associated protected area, anyhow) in Connecticut is unusual, too, especially being in Fairfield County, closest to NYC. NYC's Central Park is apparently 778 acres (3.15 km²), by the way.--Doncram (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The books FloridaArmy just listed actually help make the argument that the article falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL since they are all travel guides.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another editor just replied about NOTTRAVEL along the same lines, but I was just going to say: NOTTRAVEL says that wikipedia shouldn't be a travel guide, it simply does not say that travel guides can't be used as sources. Travel guides certainly can be reliable sources for many things, and are frequently used. And not all the sources cited are travel guides. I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deprodding is not a WP:DEL-REASON. WP:BEFORE D1 search finds sources on Google web, Google news, and Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Specifically with regard to claims that this article violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, I think that standard is being misunderstood. The fact that Webb Mountain Park happens to be mentioned in guidebooks is irrelevant to assessing the article's compliance with WP:NOTTRAVEL. WP:NOTTRAVEL really refers to not injecting excessive (and non-encyclopedic) guidebook-type information into an article. So WP:NOTTRAVEL suggests, for example, that the article for Monroe, Connecticut shouldn't list all of the restaurants in the town, or the phone numbers and addresses of various entertainment venues, or ramble on at length about surrounding tourist attractions that aren’t actually in the town. WP:NOTTRAVEL therefore really doesn't have any bearing on this AfD. All of that being said, the article is quite poorly written and definitely needs an overhaul, though there seems to be sufficient published materials in which it is referenced as to exceed the threshold below which it would be deleted for lack of notability. —Jgcoleman (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by FloridaArmy which demonstrate WP:GNG compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:33, 18 January 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 Jimfbleak, per G11 (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwash[edit]

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

I feel this article fails the general notability guidelines and our standard for depth of coverage regarding companies. Article was created an hour ago so WP:BITE concerns are alleviated. For GNG candidates I see mentions by CNBC and Law360. Everything else is press releases, BusinessWire (which I believe to be not a Reliable source, or passing mentions. (someone being murdered next to their FW truck or existing in a count of a city's car washes isn't notable). For those who care, the article is unsourced and half essay/OR about the impact of the EPA's CWAct. Detected via EF180. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as inambiguous advertising; also possibly A7 for lack of sources. WP:TNT is also applicable as unsourced original research and advocacy. I see that the page was declined at AfC a month ago as User:James_DiCarlo/sandbox, but was moved into mainspace anyway. So WP:Bite does not apply. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 13 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Sethupathy[edit]

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

Nothing actually in WP:RS for this priest. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- not quite enough to be WP-notable in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near meeting notability requirements. It is beginning to feel like someone created articles on every Catholic priest in Pakistan. I doubt it is that bad, but there are lots and lots of articles on non-notable Catholic priests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 15 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shimica Castro Wong[edit]

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

She had one song that won in the Hong Kong Film Awards , which could redirect to the film itself at (WP:MUSICBIO #10), but the rest of the information is either from her websites or iTunes. I can't make sense of the Hong Kong music charts and it's not clear which of those are notable. If she started her career with a label at 2013, why are singles prior to that listed? Non-notable other awards too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep you waiting,She has 2 official websites,http://www.hongermusic.com/shimica.php , http://b2talentasia.com/artist/shimica-wong/, And those charts are so notable in Hk. She was an independent singer who worked with pinoy musicians before signing a deal with Honger music. feel free to check it out She released her first English single on soundclick in 2007 http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=746777 And released 2 singles with pinoy musician "eAzY" on youtube in 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLACdzAQVo , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic5OvcHuayM XBabiCaca (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to check this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantopop#Major_awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantopop#Cantopop_radio_stations, it can prove that the charts and awards are notableXBabiCaca (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

977 chart official website http://www.metroradio.com.hk/997/Music/Chart/Local.aspx 903 chart official website https://www.my903.com/903openbox/903songtable1 rthk chart official website http://www.rthk.hk/radio/radio2/programme/chinesepopchart tvb chart official website http://jsg.tvb.com/XBabiCaca (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of the Hong Kong charts are described in WP:CHART so there's no indication what are really notable. Most appear to be radio and television stations' local charts. Soundclick isn't a notable chart, that's comparable to citing iTunes. The Metro Radio Hit Music Awards is a maybe as it's listed in Cantopop but the Song Writers Quest is not listed there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding actors and filmmakers, film wikiprojects for assessment of Hong Kong music and film awards notability whether those are good enough for her notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hong Kong Film Awards winner - The Hong Kong Film Awards is arguably the most prestigious film award in Asia, on par with the American Academy Awards. Top 5 RTHK charting artist. If an editor "can't make sense of the Hong Kong music charts", then that's every reason to perform due diligence and not even think of AfDing. This is looking like a case of WP:BIAS. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I'm trying to make sense of the Hong Kong music charts. I'm looking at the WP:SINGLEVENDOR now and while this would be a good case for her notability, the charts section should be scrubbed for local networks that are definitive national channels (ones based in U.S./Canada shouldn't count). Television stations should not count towards charting; this would be like having a U.S. single count towards appearing on Total Request Live. Soundclick is still not a legit chart for here as it is like iTunes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her wins is notable and her Chinese wiki is more complete. This page needs major development.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{Expand Chinese}} tag to the article. Hopefully the news articles there aren't just youtube announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For her appearance on the Hong Kong Film Awards, and establishment of what charts on Hong Kong Radio are actually notable, as well as potentially good references on ZH wikipedia, I'll go ahead and withdraw this early. But the charts still need scrubbing to meet MOS:ACCESS and discography standards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 17 January 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 revert to disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasur Hasanov[edit]

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

A resume with three citations, two of which are self-published and the third of which doesn't mention him. A search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:NBIO. I propose revert to the version of 7 May 2015, which was a {{hndis}} page overwritten by this article Narky Blert (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no argument has been provided for deletion, which would include deletion of article history. If this needs to be reverted then simply do it, and, if that is then contested, discuss the issue on the article's talk page. This is all a matter of simple editing rather than deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced self-promotional WP:COI. Restore the page to the disambiguation page from before all the fluff was added. [7] older ≠ wiser 11:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if this is deleted the history will also be deleted, so there will be nothing to restore. Edits get reverted all the time without the need to delete the pages first or discuss them at AfD. Why can't this simply be reverted without going through such a long-winded bureaucratic process first? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy revert to the necessary dab page as before the incorrect over-writing edit of 15:02, 12 January 2018. I was about to do so but then noticed the AfD template so had to hold back on it for now. PamD 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore dab [8] Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article that is no where close to being shown to cover a notable subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete, which would get rid of the original disambiguation in the history, rather than revert to it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just speedily recreated the dab page for now, and moved it to the main namespace... Only problem with the idea of restoring the dab page from this page's history, would be that the entrepreneur page has more history in that namespace. Any suggestions? For now, though, the main namespace of "Jasur Hasanov" should definitely be the dab page. No sources have been given to prove that the entrepreneur is more of a notable primary topic than the footballers. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. The history of the pages and the AfD will now be quite a mess. Please don't move a page while an AfD is happening - it would have been better to let this discussion take its course. I'm not going to try to unpick your changes, for fear of making matters even worse at this stage. PamD 17:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, so sorry. I screwed up. Should I try to fix it back? Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it back; sorry about that. Bad call on my part, and I fully apologize. It won't happen again. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy revert to dab page. Upon further inspection, this would be the best course of action. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:47, 16 January 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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Przydacz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, referees are not inherently notable through any SNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:FOOTY Atlantic306 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Derry[edit]

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

New football club, so not G4 eligible in my mind. Still fails NFOOTY. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Definitely G4 eligible IMO. New club is not in a fully-professional league so makes no difference. Perhaps also salt it this time (this will be the fourth time it's been deleted). Number 5 7 01:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 17 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Provost[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress and filmmaker, with no strong claim of notability under either WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE and no strong reliable source coverage to support an article. The strongest notability claim here is that she won a student film award at a minor film festival, and the "referencing" here is two-thirds to IMDb and one-third to an article in her local community newspaper which isn't even about her acting or filmmaking but merely about her volunteering for a local youth group. As always, neither actresses nor film directors get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their existence can technically be verified by IMDb -- she has to either (a) win or get nominated for a major award on the order of the Emmys, Oscars or Canadian Screen Awards, or (b) receive enough reliable source coverage about her work to clear WP:GNG, but neither of those things have happened. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Has not had a notable acting role and fails GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her threadbare IMDb entry challenged my will to live. Fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 02:42, 13 January 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 André (singer). (non-admin closure) — Za wl 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by André[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to André (singer) which isn't all that long. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete There is no reason this should be a separate page and not just a section under the main page of the singer SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) - striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back - it's short enough to fit easily, even if he wins a few more prizes in years to come. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to André, no reason not to with two short articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Bashir Ahmed[edit]

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

Nothing exists on Pakistan Cricket Board's website. He was the head of Multan Division so its not much notable. Nothing in sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 12 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoursports[edit]

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

Nothing significant about this website. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undisguised corporate spam and the only section is "Concept". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or fund-raising. Fails WP:SPIP and GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 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 14:22, 12 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzaro (producer)[edit]

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

Despite an extensive search, I couldn't find enough significant coverage about him; most of what I could find were passing mentions, discographies, or profiles. It appears he has collaborated with notable musicians, and he has produced at least one notable song, but I couldn't find much that discusses him specifically. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Here are some interviews about him and his works. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Harut111 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a comment above, the article creator has suggested that coverage about him might exist in Armenian; as such, participants in this discussion are encouraged to check if Armenian, Lebanese, or Swedish coverage exists. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delte a non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Please can you elaborate your statement? Also, he has got an award for being the best producer of the year. How can you just say "a non-notable producer"? Harut111 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Classic drive-by vote.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above delte [sic] !vote was typed in and saved only 1 minute and 8 seconds after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate. ––Sam Sailor 09:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. Per award, per achievements in field of music. Charting. BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he's notable and passes GNG in Armenia, there is no reason he's not notable in English WP.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Won an award at the 2015 Armenian Pulse Music Awards, so passes WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Armenian sources pass WP:BASIC and won a notable award Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources presented above don't fit the WP:GNG criteria "significant coverage of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". Most of them are interviews and non-significant. Others seem like press releases and blogs. Searching the name on Google shows nothing much, even the name in Armenian shows nothing relevant. There is nothing to verify that he won a significant/notable award, which breaches a core policy of Wikipedia. — Za wl 00:09, 20 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duquesne Family Office[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable independent sources to satisfy CORPDEPTH or GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a directory listing based on routine corporate announcements. No encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Private funds are a dime a dozen, and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is covered in enough reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? Is there significant coverage? James (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the page's current references are reliable and this one details the firm. In regard to significant coverage, 1200+ ghits. Most coverage is on recent investments but the news articles still cover Duquesne. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage refers to the substance of the coverage, not the amount of mentions. James (^talk/_contribs) 12:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, most mentions in relation to the notability of the firms being invested in, notability is not inherited. References are not intellectually independent - mainly PRIMARY sources, normal business announcements and/or relying on company announcements, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 16 January 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rangika Halwatura[edit]

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

Non notable and the content in the article mainly depended upon Sri Lankan sources. Abishe (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as yet on the substantive issue of notability, but must point out "the content in the article mainly depended upon Sri Lankan sources" is not in any way a reason for or contributing factor towards non-notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award from The World Academy of Sciences has generated enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline, as referenced in the article. These sources are from major national publications in a country with a population of over 20 million. The fact that they are from Sri Lanka rather than a smaller country such as the Netherlands does not mean that they can't be used to establish notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's argument for deletion is that the sources are Sri Lankan! That is not a valid reason for deletion, but is clear evidence of WP:BIAS. Jacona (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be awarded with "The World Academy of Science Young Scientist Award-2017" does pass WP:GNG and reliable independent source from Sri Lanka is an accepted source. Here found source from Australia SBS Station [15]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 10:54, 18 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyram Bagatsing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider these sources Philipine Star articles referencing Hyram Bagatsing Jacona (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments above, I didn't realize I hadn't actually !votedJacona (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as Phillipine Star to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per above sources. Nominator obviously didn't do WP:BEFORE, nor did Johnpacklambert, who votes delete on almost every article, often multiple times within the same minute. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 19 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Von Pessumal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily meets gng with the coverage that can be found on a search at Philipine Star [Philipine Star search for Von Pessumal Jacona (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these articles fail WP:NBASKETBALL, which sets out the guidelines for notability for basketball players. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pass WP:GNG which is a higher standard.Jacona (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But did you properly perform WP:BEFORE to check whether they passed WP:GNG? The PBA is pretty well covered in the national media in the Philippines. I checked one of these Afd's and a short search turned up a variety of sources. Seems to be the same with others, so I'm a bit worried that these Afd's are done with no WP:BEFORE whatsoever. Dammit_steve (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly notable per the above sources. It is obvious nominator did no WP:BEFORE. This and the others easily meet WP:GNG. May be time to escalate since nominator has a pattern of doing this for at least the past several months. Smartyllama (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments above, easily meets WP:GNG, so WP:NBASKETBALL is not necessary, WP:BEFORE was not performed.Jacona (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Enciso[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The PBA is pretty well covered, a short Google search turned up a variety of articles about him on slamonlineph.com spin.ph rappler.com inquirer.net abs-cbn.com tv5.com.ph -- Dammit_steve (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to stop at a quick google search.... Here's a list of articles in a Philipine paper that should help Enciso pass gng: Philipine Star articles on Simon Enciso. Plenty of coverage by reliable sources, passes gng.Jacona (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as Phillipene Star to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Trollano[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundreds of hits at the Philipine Star Global edition Philipine Star article search for Don Trollano Jacona (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per the sources provided by JaconaFrere. It is obvious nominator did no WP:BEFORE, but that's typical of him. May be time to escalate this. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Victorino[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This guy played 15 years in the PBA, one of the most popular and competitive leagues in the world, and was an all-star for 3 straight years. With that background, our shortage of references is a problem with WP:BIAS. The references are there, but as an American, I had difficulty finding them at first. It is obvious this individual will pass WP:GNG based on the sources available. Here are some: top 3 center...[16], his arrest [17], he was one of five players so valuable that special rules were made restricting their trade...[18]. If you go to the PhilStar.com website and search on Manny Victorino you'll get hundreds of articles, many of them in depth. Please look here... Phillipine Star Search page There are hundreds of articles, many in depth Really, this should be a snow keep. I know it's easy to miss the huge amount of information on these guys because it doesn't come up in google like it does with American subjects, but the subject of this article is impeccably notable.Jacona (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG per the above sources. Nominator and delete !voter need to learn to do WP:BEFORE. This is getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nomination statement fails to address whether the article subject passes GNG, and in light of the evidence presented above by JaconaFrere, it seems reasonable to question whether the nominator even gave GNG any consideration at all. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Alfarero[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT. Article indicates he played for his national team in international competition, which satisfies the requirements.--TM 19:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because playing for the national team is one hurdle he passed for notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for articles on Alfarero should include Philipine Star search page. These sources should be reviewed, they won't come up in a typical google search .Jacona (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG with articles at Philippines Star alone.Jacona (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as Philippines Star to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ric-Ric Marata[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Contested Prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG with articles listed in Philipine Star Search Jacona (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented by Jacona. Lepricavark (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Pandit[edit]

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

Unlike recent AfD discussion fro another 'Google Boy" some sources here are ones generally considered reliable but this has the same issues of credulous reports of amazing psychic powers but no actual evidence. The recognition by local politicians is obviously self-serving and not based on any usual process. WP:BLP compliance is shaky at best. WP:BEFORE does not disclose any better sources of actual accomplishments that would be recognized by WP:ANYBIO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the fringes of what can be called notable, despite the media coverage/trend for a short period of time. No effort has been made to improve the article to be encyclopedic since the previous afd. MT Train^Discuss 16:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- child prodigies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. WP:TOOSOON, per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article at this time; trivial. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON apply. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 18 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aise jale jiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, no RS to satisfy WP:V, appears it ran for a single season - debut in 2013, final episode in 2014 based on questionable sources. Most of what I've found is YouTube pay-per-view and ad revenue, and not in English. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is grossly incomplete. No episode or character list, for example. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Störm (talk) 13:19, 14 January 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. (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 06:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project topi[edit]

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

Local chapters or societies at universities are never notable. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salter Brothers Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Salter Brothers Entertainment (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, promotional tone. Was proposed for speedy deletion in 2015. Section on David Haye is covered in his own article. There is a separate article on the Feeling Nuts Movement, which seems to be the Salters' most notable achievement. Tacyarg (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, zero indications of notability. Topic fails GNG. Fails WP:SPIP. Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this. Covers routine business announcements and is highly promotional. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; WP:ORGIND; and GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:40, 18 January 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. However given the heavy level of participation in this discussion, I would suggest a brief respite before renominating Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Stewart[edit]

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

This article has had numerous problems since its inception. WP:ADVOCACY, original article written by topic. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Mayor of a city less than 100,000 population. Of course there will be lots of press coverage, but many of the references are sourced to the subject. Article appears to me to be an extension of subject's campaign. Rhadow (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Sources include the New York Times, NewsMax, and other publications from outside of New Britain. Whatever problems there are with the content itself, the subject is very clearly notable per our guidelines.--TM 12:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TM, I read the NewsMax article, and it mostly quotes her (she is the only person quoted unless you count the New Britain Herald which is the local paper). WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I haven't read the New York Times article or the "Bondbuyer" one, but I really can't say that NewsMax in this instance was "independent".–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coveerage is all routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is routine about a profile in the New York Times. Where are the profiles of the other 500 metropolitan mayors that served during this period? --RAN (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per recent discussion at DRV, mayors can be (rebuttably) presumed notable somewhere above the 50000 range, which applies here for a city of 73,000. For mayors ATD prevails over DEL8, since mayors always have a redirect/merge target. But the nomination here has cited WP:ADVOCACY. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- at 72,00 people, I see a slightly better claim to notability than some of the mayors I've nominated for deletion. However, I can't see anything here that would make here pass WP:POLITICIAN. All mayors (even of the smallest towns) get at least some newspaper coverage, but it is routine and should not be used to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references meet the GNG, WP:routine says "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items ... tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions [and] should be considered routine." I am not seeing that. The GNG has no such magic population number for determining notability. --RAN (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited references satisfy WP:BASIC with substantial independent coverage from local, regional, statewide and nationally recognized sources. See, e.g. New Britain City Journal, New York Times/Region, Connecticut Magazine and Newsmax. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a ce to improve tone. Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mayor of New Britain, Connecticut NPOV tone has been improved, and the presumption of notability has been confirmed. Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, while I appreciate your work as an editor and you have been made clear improvements with the article's tone, I would not say that NPOV problem is no longer a problem. Thank you for your edits regardless, however. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, when Florida based Newsmax says, "Considerable state and national press attention is focused on Stewart, whose upset win at age 26 over Democratic Mayor Tim O’Brien in 2013 made her an overnight Republican superstar in the Nutmeg State.", this is pretty strong evidence of GNG. On the other hand, User:MJL has opened me to the view that this is a case in which the encyclopedia is currently only interested in the topic from the viewpoint of the city, which makes this a case in which a GNG pass is a WP:N failure. The editing task is easier said than done, though, so a "Merge" result from this AfD should not mean that editors can't change their mind. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I one hundred percent agree with you. I really appreciate your openness through this process, Unscintillating. I will be voting to merge as well, (and future editors can have the option open for them, as always). I look forward to other editors reviewing and making their own comments. Some content has been added I honestly really did not want to see get deleted (and could not have thought when I originally nominated this article). I really am happy how this has went, no matter what. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many editors seem to have argued the topic meets WP:GNG. I would disagree. GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

The problem with this is that the New York Times and Newsmax can both contribute to significant coverage, a fact that this article happily points out, yet this only creates the presumption of notability. I would argue because WP:NRV (Notability requires verifiable evidence). This is where I point to WP:SPIP. I mentioned previously that Newsmax in its publishing was not independent of the source. That is quite certain as the Mayor was the only quoted source. You may also be referred to Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.

Now, on to another problem, does this article meet WP:SUSTAINED? Kinda? Sorta? Not really? The New York Times article has remained the only one of its class to cover the topic. This is not saying much, however. As mentioned before, the article was posted in NYT/Region. Further to add, it was written by Kristin Hussey, a freelance reporter for various publications that almost exclusively covers Connecticut. Further, this may not meet WP:BASIC as has been suggested. BASIC requires that "[the topic] received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources..." With only one instance of sorta-national, sorta-regional, coverage, it can be hard to call it sustained for someone that may well just remain a local mayor.

Maybe if you disagree with me about the Newsmax thing, then I could see your point. But, to do that, you have to look past we call NewsMax an influential conservative publication and in this instance only quotes the topic in the article (and say it is independent). You also would have to say that this article should be presumed notable for coverage that does not go beyond the state. You would have to be able to verify that notability, which I have not seen that done.

I hope this clears some things up. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However, there is a group of people here who keep trying to argue that if the New York Times covers something then it must be notable. When I point out that the NYT has regional/local coverage and a particular article was included in that section, I get the response that I am dismissing the NYT as a local source and it is in fact an "international newspaper". Then the next argument they throw at you is, well all reliable sources count as significant coverage and categorize them as local anyways. The point is that every mayor everywhere gets some type of local press coverage. In some cases it just so happens that the NYT is that local newspaper. If we are to accept that all subjects of NYT articles are notable, it creates a bias towards inclusion of tri-state area mayors.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When editors make notability assertions based on inclusion in the NYT, they often lose their minds. The front page is one thing, Travel and Leisure or the Connecticut section is another. The logical conclusion to the argument that NYT coverage is automatically notable is that we should build a bot to comb the NYT and generate new articles. Similar arguments are made by conflating National Geographic with National Geographic Traveler. Of course a mayor in a town of less than 100,000 population gets press coverage. It doesn't make them worthy of an encyclopedia article. Rhadow (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow, it leads one to consider whether or not the notability policy ofWP:NOTINHERITED should be considered for Mayors of towns of less than 100,000. Cromwell, Connecticut is a notable town, but the mayor is not. I could pull up similar coverage for that mayor, or I could pull up coverage of the ~~Mayor of Middletown, or~~ Mayor of Wallingford, or even my friend Bobby Berriault. It can get muddy pretty fast.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MJL -- And we went through the same argument over lists of mayors from towns in New Jersey, many of whom are elected by the public as councilmen, and elected mayor by their fellow councilmen. I agree that the standards for mayors need to be reexamined. Rhadow (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, statewide coverage in the Hartford Courant such as In New Britain, A Rookie Mayor Makes Her Mark, published nine months after the New York Times article you cited represents sustained, significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, particularly in addition to the other references cited where independent editors have deemed the subject notable. Nothing in WP:N or WP:BASIC deprecates statewide or regional sources. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent argument, 24.151.116.12. Nothing in those two policies says anything about regional sources. I also commend your addition of that source within the article. I will say, however, local-regional-state coverage (like how the article you included was written by Don Stacom, the "New Britain CT reporter for The Hartford Courant" for the Connecticut section) is something that should we should consider as something that puts into doubt the presumption granted by any sustain coverage. Thank you for your addition to the debate! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NOTINHERITED idea is at most shifting attention from the mayor of the town, to the town of the mayor. So the NOTINHERITED idea is related to BIO1E, where BIO1E is an argument to merge.
A mayor is always the mayor of a notable town, so any elected mayor always has a potential merge/redirect target...and ATD prevails over DEL8. Arguing that mayors don't immediately have sustained coverage, and/or stretching GNG to exclude local sources, argues to a failure of WP:N, but not WP:DEL8. As to the argument that local sources are a reason to claim that the coverage is not sustained, I find that illogical. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to the possibility this article be merged to something akin to Mayor of New Britain, Connecticut. I have a high amount of respect for you editing, Unscintillating, and think that you have presented would could be a wonderful solution to the current problem. If I may clarify, my argument was that local coverage expresses doubt over the verifiability(WP:NRV) an article has for notability. This is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and I disdain the notion it may be considered illogical. Though I should admit, I contradict myself at times and muddle my own point; I am *not* above admitting my own shortcomings in this regard. So do please excuse me if I become unclear.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And I realized that I in fact ~~did not say that~~ said something else in my response to 24.151.116.12... so I see where I went wrong here. I really should have said what I just now, not what I said to 24.151.116.12 in reference to presumption granted by sustained coverage. I can't apologize enough for my slip up there. I really should have cited WP:NRVE. My apologies again, Unscintillating, what I wrote was illogical and faulty. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And real quickly, noting the since I have posted this article to AfD, it is leagues above where it used to be in terms of tone. My choice of forum was based off my initial belief that it is beyond repair, but I am not so sure about that thanks to editors like yourself who have brought it to a halfway point of sorts.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my !vote to support a Merge result. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not a fan of it, we seem to keep bios of everyone who ever got paid to kick a ball or play a drum outside of their own garage, so a serially-elected mayor of a sizable city ought to be a no-brainer by comparison. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if WP:ADVOCACY was a problem here, that's nothing a good editor couldn't fix. Also, there is no population limit for mayors, per GNG. She has the sources and citations for a keep.Scanlan (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per extensive discussion with Unscintillating on this topic. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayors do not inherently meet WP:NPOL. Her claim to being "the youngest serving female mayor in the United States for a city the size of New Britain" has too many qualifications attached (youngest and serving and female and for a city X size) to be inherently notable. Some sources, like newsmax.com, are of questionable reliability. Other coverage lacks biographical depth. Chetsford (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote bolded the word "Delete" without making a single statement to explain how the evidence meets DEL8 and overcomes ATD. Why is "delete" bolded?
Further, I see no foundation for the attempt to undermine a WP:RS, and I read our newsmax.com article. Why is newsmax of "questionable reliability"? Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 16 January 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. There is no consensus that the sources are appropriate for notability. The article will be moved to Polisport per the suggestion by Comte0. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polisport Group[edit]

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

This Portuguese company manufactures plastic parts for vehicles and I believe it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Formerly PRODded eight months ago, but the creator, a one-purpose CoI editor, removed the PROD notice without taking any action. This annoyed me when I came across the article while "new" page patrolling, because I don't like to see companies getting away with using Wikipedia for free advertising space. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source was deleted from the article : [19] from the Jornal de Negócios, which look like WP:RS to me. Comte0 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, all the sources appear to be excluded by WP:NCORP - interviews, based on press release, routine stuff/announcements etc etc. Nothing I can find either on searching gbooks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to polisport Jornal de Negócios qualified it as one of the enterprises leader of the two-wheels sector among with the source above. Expresso has an articlewhich state they export to 65 countries. Público tells it's the world leader on bicycle chairs for children [20]. That should be enough. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill manufacturer, fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per the reliable sources identified by Comteo, that satisfy WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Atlantic306, Comte0, Just FYI, most references pass GNG but only a small proportion of those pass the criteria for establishing notabilty. For example, the NYT might publish an interview with the CEO, verbatim. Yeah, source passes GNG! But that source fails (at least one) criteria for establishing notability WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There are different standards applied to sources that establish notability from sources that you can use to use as citation for facts and information within an article. Please list here which of the sources you have identified above meets the criteria for establishing notability. If there are two sources, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is WP:N specifically WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are precisely for determining notability based on the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the case of companies WP:CORPDEPTH combines with GNG to effectively raise the GNG notability bar inorder to deter promotion and spam which is most common in companies pages. Using sources in articles is covered by WP:V. Regarding these references I will respond tomorrow or the next day, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also be aware of ORGIND as articles that rely on company-produced information and data also fail to meet the criteria. A rule of thumb is to examine the source to see if there is sufficient intellectually independent opinion. A red flag are articles that, while still reporting accurately, rely on the company-producted information and you will often notice this in articles that contain clauses such as "According to the company" or "Jeff, the CEO, says their product is the cheapest", etc, or a claim will be made such as "this company produces the most widgets for under-12s" but no source is included. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck keep vote as was unable to google translate the longer references beyond the read further button. The other references did not appear to be significant content and/ or did not seem independent Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I found don't say where what they say come from. I've left a note on the portuguese wikipedia Village pump for further advice. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in Shusha[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harut111 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Harut111: What is your rationale for deletion? ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Babymissfortune: Firstly, it is without any sources, secondly, it is not notable for English Wikipedia. Harut111 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shusha. There's no need for a separate article when the list is so short (1 entry - sourced on the mosque's own page Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque). It's more useful to provide this information on the main page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Only one list entry. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it fails criterion for list and there's nothing to merge. The mosque already has a standalone page and can always be mentioned in the town's page if necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 15 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuri Katz[edit]

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

Do not meet WP:ANYBIO Career is random as norm. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. promotional, and created entirely by undeclared paid editor, now banned. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 16 January 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) 16:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kearins[edit]

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

Completely un-notable referee. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate notability. - Galatz ^Talk 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are far more prominent referees who don't have articles due to not meeting general notability guidelines - wrestling referees don't normally receive media coverage unless they've had a high-profile career. Also, most of the edits seem to have come from three single-purpose accounts which suggests a possible conflict of interest. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems a clear case where the subject does not meet notability. Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it takes quite a bit for a referee to be notable, and Kearins is no where close.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete does not pass WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 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. Speedy deleted by Callanecc, CSD G5: Created by a blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malaika Faisal[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Run-of-the-mill singer. Edwardx (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of namechecking in RS but fails per WP:MUSICBIO. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be fanpage for a local singer. Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 19:42, 12 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC home video releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --wooden superman 11:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- useful resource for a well known and established label. Cagwinn (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced and even the "External links" points to Noddy: Noddy in Toyland (1999) and a BBC advertisement site. A large list of all things that are an egregious disregard of policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. We're not IMDB.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:43, 19 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Artisan Entertainment video releases[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 11:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- useful resource for a well known and established label. Cagwinn (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator as well as being an enormously large list, plucked from thin air, so obvious original research and synthesis. The list is sourced with an IMDb link for the movie Dudes (1987) that is not a reliable source. There is no actual "usefulness" for an unsourced list with an external link masked as a reference. Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magnetic Video releases[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No indication of notability. --wooden superman 11:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- useful resource for a well known and established video label. Cagwinn (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This list is made up with no sourcing, so is original research, that likely would qualify for speedy delete. There are an abundance of policies and guidelines that cover why this should not be a part of Wikipedia no matter how "established the video label" might be. Otr500 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 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 Ian Dev Singh. (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 11:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Chauhan[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBASIC M A A Z T A L K 11:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He'd pass WP:NCRIC, but it appears that the article already exists at Ian Dev Singh, so I'm going to be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 12 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Davidge[edit]

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

Delete as the article fails the notability criteria, both specific and general. It looks suspiciously like a self-penned article and the editor's contributions seem to be exclusively about this subject. Despite a claim to the contrary in the infobox, a leading online source indicates that the subject has never played in a match that would be rated top-class in domestic cricket and so I believe he fails the sport-specific notability criteria on that point. On the general notability, there cannot be sufficient media coverage of someone who has played minor cricket only. Ziggy (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should point out that I tried to access cricketarchive.co.uk which is named as a source in five places but it is a subscription site. To be fair, it is possible that this site may have information not given on espncricinfo to support notability. Ziggy (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition, I went to qsdca.com.au (cited three times) and searched for the player but, despite a number of inputs using various formats, the result was "not found" which would indicate that this site, belonging to the Queensland Sub Districts Cricket Association, is not a true source for the subject. Ziggy (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, a check of cricketarchive site shows all matches are minor and Davidge has not played in any of sufficient status to reach notability level for an article. RossRSmith (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. I too checked CricketArchive and agree with RossRSmith. JH (talk page) 16:24, 15 January 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. While there are a number of outstanding pro deletion comments, none post date or address the substantial changes in the article around the middle of the discussion. This appears to be a WP:HEY situation. However my close is without prejudice to a future renomination that is based on the current condition of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Zurawik[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability since August 2015. Sources are primarily of the WP:PRIMARY sort, things that he wrote. He doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or any other notability guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack ofsecondary sources about him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His name comes up a lot in stuff he's written, but there is not enough in-depth coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sourced. I would agree that there is insufficient in-depth coverage. He has held a number of positions within media outlets, but the competition in the news business is so fierce that he does not stand out. Knox490 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sustained and substantial appearances on national media outlets and consultation as an expert in his field lead me to believe he is notable. I consider that this is adequate to pass WP:NACADEMIC, which states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Zurawik and his works (articles) and comments are frequently included in publications by others. Was recently highlighted for an award. I added references. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment After checking annual views of article on the talk page, there appears to be intermittent spikes in views/interest in this article. Notability is certainly not dependent on viewership nor is this a RS but this may point towards notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but improve the sources. I did a quick read through of the article, and searched him up on Google. It seems that he does pass WP:GNG (barely) and WP:ANYBIO. He won the Arthur Rowse Award for press criticism, a National Press Award (which is reliable referenced here and is independent of the subject]). In WP:JOURNALIST, he meets criteria in point four, sentence b. Though sources and the writing of the article and its format needs improvement, that is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN and WP:ANYBIO. Per these criteria, I support a weak keep. I would also support userfying/draftying the article and moving to the main-space if the article is improved. CookieMonster755 ✉ 20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, the article needs work. I went in and cleaned it up some but it needs more improvement. Nevertheless, I easily found a substantial number of articles from national media outlets that either quote the subject or cite the articles he has authored. I found ~~three~~ ~~four~~ five journalism awards, including two from the National Press Club, plus one 1st place award. Because of the sustained and substantial coverage of the subject, plus his national awards, the subject clearly passes WP:BIO and satisfies WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline notability and highly promotional. He's primarily a journalist, not a professor. He does not meet WP:PROF, which is met by being shown as an authority in the person's academic field, which is measured by academic references and academic awards, not by appearances on national media. There are only two awards, the ones by the National Press Club, and I see no information that this is a major award. Finalist, and third place, are not winning awards. Articles from newspapers quoting the subject or referring to the subject do not show notability, unless they are substantially about the subject, not just giving his views on a particular issue. The article is almost entirely devoted to presenting his political views--he has many opportunities for doing that, but WP is not one of them. If the article is kept, most of the contents will need to be removed. There is one additional element of notability: his book. I added a review, but a single moderately successful book is not enough for NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article is in a substantially different state than it was when originally nominated due to a total re-write by AuthorAuthor. Do any of the early participants care to revisit their positions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has got multiple awards and the article seems to be sourced enough to be kept. Harut111 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources seem to be just him referencing himself in various forms. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:HEYMANN by [[User:AuthorAuthor makes this bio of this author, critic, professor and long-time journalist a clear keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I looked at all 25 references. There are five dead or misdirected links, three with the Sun winning awards, and the subject winning the Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism-print twice. This is an accomplishment but not the Pulitzer Prize in one of the 21 categories, the Alfred I. duPont awards with 16 categories, or even the Peabody Award. The rest of the sources are primary that does not contribute to notability and as mentioned above there would need to be more (non-primary) reliable sources. I will offer that any "WP:HEYMANN" would be directed at at @AuthorAuthor: and "Respect for contributors willing to improve articles of questioned notability". I am leaning towards delete at this time but seeing if there can be other sources found. Otr500 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a notable author, best known for his 28 years as TV critic for The Baltimore Sun (Wikipedia, incidentally, cites him ~75 times in this capacity) and for a book about television. The article cites reviews of his book in American Jewish History and the Baltimore Chronicle. I've added four more reviews to a "further reading" section. These reviews are sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR criterion #3. That said, there's a lot of peripheral content in the article, supported by primary sources, that should be trimmed. For example, he's one of 45 editors on the editorial board of a SAGE journal, but so what? As AuthorAuthor says, the article needs further improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 17 January 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Tried to remove, but was reverted. An unnecessary disambiguation that can be replaced by a hatnote, none of the items in it are not from the same series. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid disambiguation page that would be too clunky to fit into a hatnote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 10:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons listed by Patar. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more entries here than a hatnote could comfortably fit. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:45, 16 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The JT Show[edit]

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

Article about a radio program, which neither makes nor properly sources any claim that it passes WP:NMEDIA for anything. As always, every radio show is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own social media presence nominally verifies that it exists -- it needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media other than its own parent station, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The show doesn't warrant a split off article on its own. It could be merged with the main radio station's article but I googled it and found very little about the show. So, convinced to delete per nom. EROS ^message 11:55, 12 January 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 Television show#Seasons/series. Redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split television season[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced WP:DICDEF of a term, with no context provided (or even really possible) for why it would need an encyclopedia article. This is hardly an isolated phenomenon -- at a guess, at least a quarter of all television series that have ever existed at all have done this in some fashion or another, such as by going on hiatus and then coming back months later, or by being cancelled and then having the remaining episodes burned off during the summer rerun season, or by having shortened or staggered seasons due to the current phenomenon of experimentation in broadcast scheduling models. Neither the content (a recursive definition which basically "defines" the term by merely rearranging its own words), nor the complete lack of any sourcing at all, suggests any reason why this would need a standalone article rather than two sentences in Television show#Seasons/series. Bearcat (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, especially the two sentences part. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this page explains the concept better than the (unreferenced) article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've extended the article (before, after) and while it could certainly be improved further, I think it's worth having. Mortee (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable term, deserves a mention in the TV season article only. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Television show as with Television season. There is discussion in the section Television_show#Seasons/series. And it should really be discussed at that talk page whether a spinoff article fixed solely on split seasons should exist. Otherwise it's just an excuse to come up with a laundry list of shows that have split seasons or half seasons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:08, 20 January 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States[edit]

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

I suspect this is a hoax article, along with the other box office number one lists from 1960-1981, all created by the same person. BoxOfficeMojo records only go back as far as 1982 and I'm unable to find any other reliable references. The presence of And Now for Something Completely Different on the list as the box office number one for three weeks is a giveaway. The film wasn't released in the USA until August 1972 and failed to find much of an audience. The claim on this list that it reached number one after its second week in release is an invention to imply authority. Barry Wom (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another giveaway - the inclusion of Get Carter which was apparently "poorly promoted" in the USA and released to drive-ins at the bottom of a double bill. Barry Wom (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Betty Logan as someone who has worked with box office content extensively. She may have an informed answer about this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is possible that some of these figures are fabricated or mistakes, but I don't think we can assume all of them are just because Box Office Mojo doesn't go that far back. I am all for removing unsourced data if it can't be checked out but it is fairly trivial (albeit expensive) to check this data using the Variety archives at https://varietyultimate.com/. The only snag is that it costs you $60 per 50 views (next to useless for a project that involves searching through 52 editions per year), or $600 for unlimited annual access. I think our aim though should be verifying this data before embarking on a huge deletion campaign. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we could get Variety premium access. This mentions Tim Gray writing about the archives. Maybe one of us could appeal to him for membership to verify this and help with other parts of Wikipedia? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been googling around seeing if there are any other lists and came across this blogger here: https://boxofficeboffo.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/reboot/. He confirms that our lists and Variety's are about "approximately 50 percent different". I can hazard a guess at what has happened here. Up to the 1980s Variety used the historic gross rental metric (which it confusingly labelled the "box-office gross" at the time). However, the gross rental and box-office gross (as documented on Box Office Mojo) are related but very different metrics. Editors often fail to understand the distinction and conflate them. It has led to quite a few pre-1980 film charts becoming corrupted. It may be simpler (and more ethical?) to follow Barry's suggestion because at the moment our pre-1980 charts do not seem fit for purpose. Even if we get access to the Variety archives we are still basically looking at starting from scratch. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon you may have been generous here by suggesting that the editor responsible for the pages in question was confused by metrics - pages which have been little altered since their creation. There have been several requests for a source for the information, all of which have gone unanswered. The editor in question seems hardly reliable as they have been indulging in petty vandalism as recently as a few days ago. I picked 1971 as an example as it's inconceivable that the two British films I mentioned made any dent whatsoever in the American box office charts, never mind being number one for three weeks apiece. By extension, I'd argue that without sources every list from 1960-1981 should be deleted. Barry Wom (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the litany of warnings on his talk page his edits are clearly a cause for concern. It's depressing to say this but nobody can rely on this data as it stands. Even if we can get access to the correct data I think these articles are going to have to be completely redone. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers were either tampered with or are utter nonsense. I've counted ten occurences of thousands and ones 3-digit groups being the same but transposed (examples in article: 4,395,593; 3,593,395; 1,294,924...). The chance of this being true for a random 7-digit number is approx. 0.3%. The chance of 10 such numbers occuring out of 52 is, for our intents and purposes, a fat zero (or to be exact, ~0.000000000000000890805). There are also repetitive patterns of numbers connected in a diagonal pattern on the keyboard numpad (e.g. 2-4-9, 3-5-9) that lead me to believe someone was mashing keys, but taking care not to be too obvious. Now, whether this is Simpsonguy1987's original creation or it stems from a more legitimate source, I cannot tell, but these numbers were made up. Daß Wölf 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Simpsonguy1987 has got a bit of explaining to do. I don't want to accuse an editor of fabricating data without proof but at this stage I think it is important for him to tell us exactly where he got this data from. That aside the articles need to be scrapped, but not before we get to the bottom of what's happened here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has been editing Wikipedia for more than five years and has yet to touch a talk page. Their own talk page is a litany of warnings about adding unsourced content. I suspect the desired explanation will not be forthcoming. — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daß Wölf's statistical evidence is damning, and would certainly be more than enough to secure a fraud conviction if these numbers appeared in company accounts or a tax return. We operate to a lower standard of proof than the criminal law (at least in any jurisdiction where the rule of law is taken seriously), so it is enough for us to delete this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, G3 may be appropriate. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 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 Psychoeducation. Redirects are cheap. However this is w/o prejudice if anyone wants to go into the article history and migrate it to Wiktionary. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoeducational[edit]

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

dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychoeducation, as a useful search term per WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a very sensible suggestion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the term is used in multiple contexts; "psychoeducational assessment" is commonly seen in school settings in regards to assessing for learning disabilities and such. I'd lean toward either deleting the article or turning it into a "may refer to" page. TimD ^[talk] 03:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move to Wiktionary No, @Rathfelder: it doesn't seem "a very sensible suggestion" at all. As @Tdowling: says, the term is used in varying contexts and the article psychoeducation (which focuses on a type of therapy) doesn't fit with the assessment and educational focus of this one. This page should be moved to wiktionary and broadened to include other usage such as that in psychoeducation (an article which also needs work, obviously). Famous _dog (c) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary per the comments above. (For what it's worth, I'm the one who created this article—although it severely fell off my radar shortly thereafter) TimD ^[talk] 21:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or transwiki?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:10, 12 January 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. The weight of argument here comes down pretty firmly against the subject's passing WP:BASIC with very weak coverage. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Dowling[edit]

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

Non notable priest. Dean of a cathedral is not a position giving presumed notability. Medal of the OA is the lowest position, awarded in unlimited numbers. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- to be consistent with what I said in another AfD, being a rabbi is not automatically notable and neither is being a priest.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like Rusf10 I am also reminded of the currently up for dletion article on a rabbi, where one person alleged all rabbis presiding over synagogues are notable. This would be like saying all rectors/cathedral deans are notable. Well, clearly all rectors are not notable. While Cathedral deans are probably a step closer to default notability than rectors, only bishops are default notable, and I have to admit while this makes sense to me in the Catholic context (limiting Catholic to those bishops recognized by the Pope in Rome, not Old Catholic and other breakaway groups, which sometimes are extremely small), I think the attempted application of this principal to Episcopalians and Lutherans has at times mislead us. Many Episcopalian dioceses are extremely small in number of total congregants. Dowling is at a level where we would need broad coverage in multiple reliable sources, coming from outside his local area of operation, and we lack that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outside of his priest activities, I think Gerald Dowling's 40+ year radio career is worthy of notability (https://www.misacor.org.au/index.php/emagazine/current-news/141-fr-gerry-dowling-family-cou-nsellor-on-air ), along with his work as a Club historian for the North Melbourne Football Club. Happy to do some further work on the article in the next couple of weeks to expand it more to reflect those areas. Disclosing that I have been a member of his last parish too. Jbro68 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At most weak keep -- Anglican deans where #Anglicanism is the dominant religion are probably notable. Catholic ones outside Catholic majority countries may not be. Football club historians are probably also NN per se. I am not qualified to judge the prominence of his radio career, but if with a major radio station the combination might be enough to push him into notability. I note we have another person of the same name. It may be this article should be Gerard Dowling (priest) freeing up the present name for the other person. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there is WP:SIGCOV. WP:HEY we evaluate priests the way we do any other profession, by searching for sources. I ran a proquest news archive search on his name , and added the first few articles dedicated to him (an interview on being a football fan, a profile of his radio work, news coverage when he was hospitalized for cancer,) I stopped after adding these few; there were more. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable either as a priest or a radio personality. Sourcing is in passing, routine and / or WP:SPIP. "...is known by many for his pastoral outreach" is pure WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by what is shown. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, in addition to those already on the page, include Radio priest defies grave illness Herald Sun, 2006; a number of 1996 articles on the 25th anniversary of his radio program, like this:

"ACROSS 25 years the most noticeable change has been the scourge left by drugs, but otherwise, says Father Gerard Dowling, the problems of people and the willingness of others to help remains basically the same. Father Dowling, the spiritual director of Melbourne's Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, ought to know, because this Sunday his weekly radio talkback show, The Family Counsellor, reaches its 25th birthday. It's a remarkable run for a show that debuted as a one-hour program in the 11pm slot on Father's Day 1973 on the then 3UZ. It moved to 3DB, then TT-FM when the station changed format, before returning to Sport 927 in recent years. Over 1300 programs (the show hasn't missed a single week), Father Dowling has offered advice to listeners, or advised them on how to seek help from other sources.

"People are under tremendous pressure these days; there's a lot of uncertainty," he says. "But I still find it uplifting that people are actually looking for help. The fact that people are ringing means they believe there is some answer to their problems. For many, just having someone to listen to them is something." At last, a chance to air grievances; Radio Waves in The Age. He was President of the charity St. Vincent de Paul in Victoria $7.5m for poor from St Vincent describes here by The Age as "one of Victoria's largest charities]. out of time for now, but there are more articles, article just needs a news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources above are not suitable for notability. For example, the extensively quote piece is an interview, as in:

"...otherwise, says Father Gerard Dowling, the problems of people..." Etc.

The other sources are likewise not sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 13 January 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. CSD G12 Clear copy vio of [21]. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-K[edit]

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

Linux distro on a USB drive by a small startup. Doesn't meet GNG or NSOFT Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-K OS:

features coverage by the national public broadcasting company of Italy (cyber security);
is the winner of the most innovative Startups' product in Italy (Digital 360 Awards);
counts reviews of some of the most read italian IT blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoburatto (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-K OS has been released as freely-downloadable and submitted to Distrowatch only recently. Distrowatch is keeping Secure-K OS in its "staging" directory as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoburatto (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 09:36, 12 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawshall (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not a valid dab, it has a link to the place Lawshall and then several places etc within the area of Lawshall - barely even WP:PTMs. They can be mentioned in the Lawshall article if appropriate. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawshall (disambiguation) has provided an index for the last six years. It is this sort of pettiness that forced my decision to withdraw from Wikipedia. Up to 10 hours a day I used to spend on articles like these. My withdrawal is yours and the Wikipedia community's loss. If you really care you would of course provide a substitute index. League Octopus 19:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here is actually ambiguous. This is a misunderstanding of what a disambiguation is. That no one noticed it's existence for six years or more still doesn't make it a valid disambiguation page. You might try moving it to a title like list of things associated with Lawshall, but such list articles have typically fared poorly at AfD. older ≠ wiser 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing here is ambiguous. Every single item is linked from within the article on the village, Lawshall, so no navigation is lost by deleting this page. Dab pages are not "indexes" of items relating to a topic, but listings of potentially ambiguous titles. (And I've added a "See also" at Laws Hall to provide a link to the village from anyone confused in that way). There could reasonably be a category Category:Lawshall, or a template (with sections for "Notable buildings", "historic sites", "settlements", "hamlets in the parish" perhaps) but not a dab page. PamD 20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as a challenge to my minimal template-creation skills (and as a way of procrastinating on this evening's Real Life plans like boring paperwork) I've put together {{Lawshall}} and added it to Lawshall. Feel free to tweak it and then to add it to all the other articles. Navbox templates like this are designed to provide an index to a group of articles related to each other and to an overall topic: disambiguation pages are something different. PamD 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To User:League Octopus, what User:PamD has done is a kindness. {{Lawshall}} is a navigation template which can be placed on each of the articles that it indexes. This seems to fully respond to your request that someone creates a substitute index. All's well that ... --Doncram (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't often support deletion of disambiguation pages. But some internet browsing yields no alternative meanings for term "Lawshall"; there's no immediate prospect of disambiguation being needed. --Doncram (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the page's links are:

All Saints Church, Lawshall - a church in The Street, Lawshall.
Bury Road, Lawshall - a linear settlement in the parish of Lawshall and partly within the parish of Bradfield Combust with Stanningfield.
Lambs Lane, Lawshall - a nuclear settlement, including The Glebe, in the parish of Lawshall.
Lawshall Green - a hamlet in the parish of Lawshall.
Lawshall Hall - a former manor house in The Street, Lawshall.
The Street, Lawshall - a linear settlement, that forms the historic core, in the parish of Lawshall.

List of artists with the most number ones on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart[edit]

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

This is merely a page that may be great for chart fans but this list just covers info for a secondary chart that has little written about it outside Billboard itself, the primary source. The entire basis of this article is succinctly covered at Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This goes into far more detail about the record and statistics than the page you link to. This is no different to many other lists like this. — Calvin999 12:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is excessive per WP:IINFO. All it does is recap the list of #1s for those artists listed. It doesn't provide any more context of the significance of this achievement. It's overkill, especially for a secondary chart in a trade magazine. Even Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 was redirected. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure leaning slightly towards delete If you ignore the prose you end up with an unnecessary content fork. Also when you have paragraphs of statistics and song names longer than the actual list then it is hard to justify calling it a list. I see the name was changed a couple of years ago to call it a list which I think is wrong and should be changed back if the article stays in it's current state. Still it all seems a bit WP:IINFO & WP:FANCRUFTY particularly when this is just a minor chart and therefore lacks secondary sources to make it a notable topic/list. Mattg82 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles – I definitely think this isn't necessary. It is sufficiently covered at Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles, and the information in prose can be found at the artists' respective discography articles. I agree that this falls under WP:IINFO, as these are statistics that don't have that much attention in reliable sources, and aren't even for the flagship Billboard chart (the Hot 100). As the nominator pointed out, a similar article for the Hot 100 was redirected. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles; merge individual achievements prose that isn't already there to the performers' articles - clean and easy - most of the table info, the most important info, is already there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles we had earlier decided to redirect Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 on its talk page. Excelse (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Calvin999. Vorbee (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 12 January 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable research organisation; only sources I can find in an internet search are either from schools that are associated with it or discuss people associated with it; nothing third-party on the organisation itself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the National Science Foundation's Mathematical Science Institutes, along with AIM, IAS, MSRI, etc. [22] XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per XOR'easter. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per XOR'easter. —Gpc62 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 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. There appears to be a rough consensus that the subject lacks sufficient in depth coverage about himself as opposed to passing references to him, to pass WP:ANYBIO. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickley (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As the intro suggests, this person has never been elected to a national parliament and is a 'perennial by-election candidate'. As such he fails WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. In fact most of this article is about complaints by the UK Independence Party about alleged voting fraud. The long unsourced quote ending the article sounds unnecessary and quite self promotional. Considering this article has already been deleted at AfD in 2014, there appears to be little (other than routine election coverage) that has happened to improve Bickley's chances of meeting WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable defeated candidate for office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is UKIP treasurer and has been the UKIP spokesman on immigration for the last year. He is frequently quoted in the national media in connection with these roles. Immigration has been a top political issue in the UK for a long time and will remain so especially while Brexit negotiations are ongoing. Immigration is central to UKIP's policies. His roles make him one of the top ten key people in UKIP, a party that remains an opposition force in British politics. Although he has not been successful in elections we know that UKIP has had an influence in British politics well beyond what would be expected from their standing in elections and that influence continues. He therefore meets general notability guidelines WP:GNG. The article could benefit from some improvements including references to news articles related to his roles, however the sources can easily be found and their existence is enough to establish notability even if they are not currently linked in the article. The article was previously deleted in 2014 and must have been restored because of increased notability from the roles he assumed more recently. Weburbia (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked all 14 refs (unfortunately I have nothing better to do) - they are all trivial mentions about a failed candidacy, 404's or focus on his party and don't mention him at all. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Add. This article has been previously deleted at AFD, it probably evaded G7 this time because it was recreated with 11 refs, but the last AFD was pretty conclusive. Szzuk (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous AfD was three years ago so it is of no relevance now. I think I would have agreed with the deletion at that time but his notability increased with appointments since then. The article was recreated in December 2016 when he became UKIP's immigration spokesman. This is reflected in press articles over the last 12 months in which he features. Furthermore, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." WP:NEXIST and "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." WP:ARTN. Please do a search for new sources before making criticisms based on the poor quality of the article or the former AfD whose conclusions are now obsolete. Weburbia (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability requires verifiable evidence WP:NRV. This AFD is an opportunity for editors to locate new sources or highlight existing sources that verify notability - if that does not happen the article will be deleted. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This book, published by the Oxford University Press, has quite a bit of coverage of Bickley. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples, but anyone can search the Google news archive and judge for themselves. There are plenty of references. Frankly I don't know why this is even up for debate. People may not like it but being UKIP immigration spokesman is clearly a notable political office.

Diane Abbott lashes out at Ukip politician during furious row over tackling extremism - Express

General election: UKIP want 'one in, one out' migration - BBC

Conservatives stand by migration target 'aim' - BBC

Fury after plans for all EU migrants to be able to come to Britain after Brexit as long as they have a job - The Sun

Just 11% of Britons say Govt doing good job on Brexit - Sky Data poll - Sky News

Weburbia (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG needs coverage about the subject, not the subject saying things about something else (e.g. UKIP's immigration policy). If Bickley hasn't had significant coverage about him, he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of material that is "more than a trivial mention" in reliable sources as required for WP:GNG. When a politician is quoted for example that is saying something about him. Weburbia (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite, when someone says something about immigration they're saying something about immigration, not themselves. If there's plenty of coverage about Bickley, rather than UKIP immigration policy, maybe you'd care to share it. Sionk (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree fundamentally with your interpretation. A person is notable as a politician because of what they say and do in politics, not because of personal details about themselves. Being a spokesman for immigration means that he is leading the process of setting immigration policy for the party. He is not just reading out what others think. Having said that, there are plenty of news articles mentioning him in relation to topics other than immigration. It is not my responsibility to search and list them all for other people. My point is just that the article is not the only place to look for the answers. Weburbia (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but be open to inclusion later on. Right now there is not enough reliable and in-depth coverage. But given the forward momentum of right-wing populism in Europe, it would be foolish not to consider his inclusion later.Knox490 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is UKIP's treasurer. UKIP spokesman on immigration for the last year. Frequently quoted in the national media relating to a top political issue, namely immigration.desmay (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found additional coverage about him generating outrage by retweeting a racist cartoon, and for a business failure. [[23]];[[24]];[[25]] [[26]] With the five elections he participated in, and his role as UKIP spokeperson, he just barely passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to afford people the opportunity to evaluate Timtempleton's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may not pass, WP:NPOL for failing to win election but he does pass WP:GNG for that repetitive failure. (irony?). Actually serial failure often brings fames and notability more than single winning (which will give automatic WP:NPOL). His serial failure will now make him known to everybody concerned with the politics and any of his political move again will surely attract press coverage. In addition the sources by Timtempleton above contain substantial content about the subject and many more are in the article by respected papers The Guardian, Economist, Independent and their like. The only way I can justify supporting deletion is if failure to win election is automatic disqualified for article, and that cannot be possible as long as WP:GNG exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles provided to "demonstrate notability" are really about UKIP or UK immigration policy or Brexit; Bickley is mentioned tangentially, the articles aren't about him, just statements he's making on behalf of UKIP (and therefore about UKIP. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not proposing merge, but to the extent a future editor feels it's necessary to mention him by name on pages for any of those groups/events, they can still do that on those pages without him needing a full WP:BLP. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local politician; does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is routine for this level of position. Not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "He is UKIP treasurer and has been the UKIP spokesman on immigration for the last year.", failing WP:NPOL. I looked at the references: His only claim to fame is as a "local politician". Articles on "Oldham West", "fraud claims", "postal vote complaints" or any article or source referencing something within the capacity of his position, especially with trivial or passing mention, no not advance notability. Subjects lacks reliable, indepenant, and in-depth coverage. By-the-way: There is no automatic inherited notability on Wikipedia. All articles on Wikipedia must follow the File Pillars. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 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. Consensus seems to favor Keep with a minority supporting some sort of merge. If there is a desire to pursue the merge option further that discussion can take place elsewhere along with the suggestion for an article name change. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tide Pod Challenge[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets any of the notability standards. It's a recent internet meme rather than anything substantive, and the only references are to sites that talk about it being a meme. I could see it being notable if there were children poisoning themselves with it, but at this point it's nothing more than a joke on the internet. WidowXTracer2Cute (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So I've added some more information addressing the valid concern with a lack of health-related risks/concepts relating to Tide PODS in the article. There's now a much more substantial amount of health-related information than previously included, although I would like to mention that the nominator's rationale that "the only references are to sites that talk about it being a meme," is a little misleading, as at the time of AfD nom, references included a Consumer Reports article discussing health-risks posed by the PODS, a CBS News article discussing the CDC's warning about the health risks related to the PODS, as well as an actual reference to a study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology.

Now the article has 22 references, and even if you exclude the Straight Dope message board and Onion references (ones I included to provide sources for what many media publications credit with the meme's origins), then the article still has references from various different and reliable sources, (discussing everything from the packaging of the Tide PODS used to prevent eating them, to the meme itself) certainly enough sources to allow this article to pass notability guidelines.

I would like to add that "a joke on the Internet" should not be excluded from having their own Wiki article, especially in cases like this, where the joke on the Internet has significant coverage in reliable sources.

Finally, I would like to also comment on the original reasoning for this article's AfD tagging (Obscure internet meme. Article seemingly made more as a joke than in good faith). On that first point, I hope I've been able to establish that this isn't an obscure Internet meme, as the article now has sufficient coverage from reliable sources. And on that second point, I can't deny that this meme is IMO one of the funnier ones I've enjoyed during my time on the Internet. However, I have experience with legitimately creating and editing articles related to Internet memes, so I can assure this article was made in good faith. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this information is already in laundry detergent pod, and this article is a mess. We're not Snopes, and this article reads as dangerous to me as actually encouraging the practice (kids have indeed had major problems from eating them; it's not a joke). The one mention in 'laundry detergent pod' of the meme is by far enough about this topic (and some parts of this article are good sourcing for the other article and should be considered for addition into it). Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says to go out of our way to avoid that which might encourage such behavior? Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully disagree with this article being "dangerous". I didn't write this in a way to glorify eating them, just wrote information that is representative of the concepts covered in reliable sources. You're right, kids have had problems eating it, which is why health-risk information is included and objectively cited by credible, reliable sources. You could argue that the fact that eating Tide Pods became a meme is dangerous, but then it isn't Wikipedia's job to censor real-world phenomenon or what the Internet causes to be become popular. The one mention in laundry detergent pod that I added, about the meme existing, is not sufficient IMO, because it doesn't delve deeper into what the meme fully encompasses (i.e. it's a satirical, mocking look at eating the pods; common trope of calling pods a "forbidden fruit" for some reason), and also this article deals with eating Tide Pods specifically, as opposed to a general laundry detergent pod. It warrants separation b/c ideally the laundry detergent pod article would cover the pod concept overall (introduction and history of the product, different brands, packaging, health concerns, a distinguishing of pods from conventional detergent), whereas this article deals with just the consumption of specifically Tide Pods, which seems to be a much more common phenomenon even past the meme, which is why I added a health-risk section in this article. Soulbust (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant into the laundry detergent pod and/or Tide articles. This really doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia page; and, as Nate pointed out, the currently existing page is a real mess. That said, I can see the fact that this has somehow turned into its own weird meme as being worthy of a mention. --Pikavangelist (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on detergent pods and redirect. No evidence that eating Tide pods is a bigger actual health problem than eating other brands of detergent pods. This is like having an article Sticking beans up your nose and then creating an article on Sticking kidney beans up your nose. Edison (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with that beans analogy is that eating Tide Pods aren't just noted for being a health-risk. If that's all this article had, then yeah I would 100% support a merge to laundry detergent pod. The thing is Tide Pods specifically are mentioned in every reference. And a good half of this article is based on the Internet meme around eating Tide pods. Like there's a very prevalent specification of Tide Pods made in the meme.

The thing is pretty much every sentence in this article is referenced properly with a reliable source. My concern with merging it into laundry detergent pod is that there would be an undue weight placed on Tide's pods on that article, and while you can probably find a couple sources supporting the concept of children eating other brands' pods, you'll fail at generalizing the meme which is integral to the whole point of this warranting a stand-alone article. If you merge this to Tide (brand), the problem with that will be again undue weight, this time on the pods, as Tide sells a laundry list (pun intended) of products. If this article was created under Tide pods I could really see all of your points. But the article is precisely centered around Eating the Tide pods, which agreeably is a ridiculous concept at first glance. But I feel if one goes through the article's sources, and examines the sheer coverage of this concept both as an Internet meme and a health risk, then it kinda speaks for itself that this article should't be merged.

Finally, I'd just like to ask how is this article a "mess"? It's organized properly, with a section discussing the meme, and another section discussing the health-risks. It's referenced properly, with each reference following one standard style. The lead section can probably benefit from a more accurate and filled summary of the article, but I really don't see the "mess" of it. I'd be more than willing to work to improve it, but there hasn't been any real elaboration given to that concern.

Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with laundry detergent pod article. Somewhat notable, but not necessarily enough to warrant its own article. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 07:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Media coverage has increased since then. I do think it needs to be moved to a better title though. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 06:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Laundry detergent pod with redirect. Even if "Tide" is used in most iterations of the meme, it's still not central to what the meme is about, and I don't think the meme has enough distinctive character to stand as its own article. Sure it might mean that the word "Tide" will appear with a bit more frequency in the detergent pod article, but I think that's a more minor issue than having this article as a stand-alone, and one that can be minimized with some good copy editing anyway. Jhugh95 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep - in the days since, coverage has increased sharply, and I believe this now meets notability for a full article. Jhugh95 (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to laundry detergent pod per above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soulburst and its prevalence on social media.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 23:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as one may not like it, memes get significant coverage these days. Page should not be merged as it meets GNG, and it is clear from media coverage that the brand of the product is a key part of the meme. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although I would agree that this topic is significant as a meme, I believe it should be moved to laundry detergent pod. Nanophosis (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, though? Why a merge to laundry detergent pod? If it's significant as a meme, then it warrants its own standalone article, just as other memes significant enough to draw widespread and in-depth media coverage from reliable sources. Soulbust (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This dangerous trend has been widely covered in the press and deserves an article as many of these social media fads, what's unfitting is the name, which is very unencyclopedic. Gothbag (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I originally named it "Eating Tide Pods" after the meme. The meme is undoubtedly the cause for this social media trend. Without the meme you would just have an annual report by Consumer Reports and whatnot. "Eating Tide Pods" is a very accurate and fitting title for this article. If it were to be renamed what are some alternative names for the article? Because as I said before, I named it "Eating Tide Pods" because it is centered on specifically eating Tide Pods as opposed to just a general Tide Pods article, which honestly, at this point would have an enormous undue weight problem related to eating them. Soulbust (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This dangerous meme has significant coverage to back it up. If we keep this page going, even more coverage can be found and help raise health awareness for those who don't know how unhealthy a Tide pod is for people. ULTRA-DARKNESS^{:) 2 CHAT} 19:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think the concept is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, but the appropriate place is within the context of Laundry detergent pod. A standalone article and/or content fork really isn't warranted. Deli nk (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has significant coverage. Some people, sadly, are idiots who will believe everything they read on the Internet. What happened to Lolcats, Weegee, and YTP? KMF (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. While the meme has significant coverage, it would be highly irresponsible to keep the article's title as "Eating Tide Pods". -Mardus /talk 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Perhaps an alternative name could be Tide Pods meme or something like that. I still think "Eating Tide Pods" is a perfectly apt and accurate name. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to keep people from eating Tide Pods. The meme itself is based around eating Tide Pods and the health-risk related to Tide Pods is linked to eating them. Soulbust (talk)
Delete or, in the alternative, merge. A brief flurry of coverage is not "significant" or in-depth, and to the extent it is noteworthy it can be mentioned in a line or two of the main article.
Merge Ugandan Knuckles has its own section in the Knuckles the Echidna and it is a big trend on the internet right now sans the media coverage. This article should merge with Laundry detergent pod because the eating pods meme is not limited to Tide. FunksBrother (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly in my opinion I think Ugandan Knuckles can probably be able to warrant its own article, because there is far more reliable coverage than just those few references used in the mention it has on the Knuckles the Echidna page, but that is a different situation and as I've learned over the years, different articles or situations should not be used as arguments for other articles. As for that idea that "the eating pods meme is not limited to Tide", well I disagree, as for the meme—for all intents and purposes—is limited to Tide. Sure, theoretically, some teenager out there could eat some Gain Flings. But, none of the references or sources included in this article make mention of Internet users joking about eating Gain flings (or any other brand's pods), nor about people literally consuming any specifically non-Tide detergent pods. Additionally, and I'm not using this as an argument for keep, as I've already given my reasons above—but it's intriguing that a google image search of laundry detergent pod (here) takes a while to pop up with images of non-Tide pods. This meme heavily, almost exclusively centers around Tide's pods as opposed to other brands. Also the "brief" flurry of coverage shouldn't be an argument, as "brief" is subjective, and also once a subject meets notability guidelines/achieves notability, it can not lose that notability. Sure, it can fade from relevancy, or "popularity", but Wikipedia has a GNG guideline that outlines a Wikipedia article requiring notability, not relevancy or popularity. Soulbust (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanna clarify on that Google images note; I meant an image of another brand's pod(s) by itself. There are some images that do pop up that compile a lot of different brands' pods, but you'll see orange & blue a lot, and a lot by itself. Soulbust (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tide Pods. The meme may not warrant an article of its own but supports the notability of Tide Pods in general. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of the move to Tide Pods as an alternative. We would need to move edit history of this article into that one though, I believe. Soulbust (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep This stupid challenge (seriously, we're in Darwin Award territory) has received much extensive coverage, though it likely is to be limited in time as YouTube is now actively taking down such videos to avoid copycats. Whether it can sustain a stand-alone or not, I'm not sure, but this is definitely something to be kept somewhere. --Masem (t) 22:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability guidelines. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly notable enough for its own article. I guess I'd be okay with a merge, if no information is lost, but merging all too often results in lost information, now, or later. Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more encyclopedic, like Consumption of laundry detergent pods. Other than that, keep. Hist4ian (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge story. Not sure why someone wanted to remove it. Niqabu (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, preferably to something along the lines of "human consumption of tide pods". The tide pod challenge itself started receiving coverage in late December of 2017, but this coverage started to skyrocket in January. I believe that this article should be expanded to give a general overview of eating tide pods, since this is a topic that has been receiving coverage in reliable sources since tide pods were introduced in 2012. For example, Consumer Reports wrote an article back in 2012 discussing a CDC report about eating tide pods. I agree that this subject is a bit cringe worthy, but it nonetheless meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:09, 20 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Suárez controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was closed as no consensus three years ago and I am thinking (hoping) our BLP standards have changed enough since then to make this article non-compliant with our current expectations.

Some claimed it was a WP:Split, but we don't even have a controversy section (quite rightly) in the main article.

It is also a lot of WP:synth. You can't just collect a couple of incidents and lump them together to create a negative hit pieces. Notable controversies will have there own page, semi notable ones can be mentioned at the main article and non-notable ones should not be on here at all.

I looked to see if there were any other articles that highlighted an individuals controversies in such a way[27] and virtually all are redirects to the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage in mainstream sources to provide ample cited information and justify the split from Suarez's bio. A number of the sources specifically refer to "controversies" and refer to Suarez as "controversial" so WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources") does not apply. This article is certainly not a "negative hit piece" - it sticks to the facts and freely mentions the points-of-view of Suarez and those who have supported him. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What split? This was created by an editor with BLP issues[28] as a stand alone article.[29] It needs to survive as a stand alone article and the very title is a WP:BLP violation. AIRcorn (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the creator may have done on other articles is not relevant here as this article contains no BLP violations that I can see. As I stated in my !vote, the article contains ample cited information (so no BLP violation) and a number of the sources specifically refer to "controversies" and refer to Suarez as "controversial" (no BLP violation in the title. The article is a valid content split from the Luis Suarez bio, regardless of what any of us think of the creator's possible intentions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks to motivation. Being able to source something does not mean it can't be a BLP violation. Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NPOV are two different policies for a reason. Again there is no content split, it was started as a stand alone article. If fact the racial abuse section has its own article. If this was a "List of Controversial incidents involving Luis Suárez" article then we could claim it was not synth, but it would still have the same BLP issues. BLP and Neutrality trumps most things around here. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated in my comments already, there's no reasonable claim that this article is a violation of BLP or SYNTH. And it clearly is a split being that it is an expansion of certain specific aspects of the life and times of one Luis Suarez. BLP and neutrality are extremely important and this article is in violation of neither. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Instead of commenting on the article creator and whatever problems he may have been causing (as this encyclopedia belongs to everyone that can be rectified) I will bring up WP:CRITS: "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". These incidents can and already are interwoven in the main Luis Suárez article. Looking in the examples brought up in search by Aircorn, there are Good Articles on Madonna and Eminem - two of the most controversial pop musicians - in which the controversies have been woven into the prose rather than split off. Also, consider how there are not articles or even sections on the controversies of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: instead, again, the incidents are mentioned in the relevant place along with the reaction. Harambe Walks (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. As shown above, specific articles on "controversies" about people are heavily depricated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I agree with JPL that this article should be deleted and summarized into the parent article. As a lover of football for many years, when I think of Suarez, what comes to mind is a clinical forward with deadly finishing. Reality check: Will you call Suarez a controversial football player? The answer is obviously "NO". The controversial incidents of his career are not really "controversies" per se. The biting incident was more of a biological trait that he needed to work on. The racial incident would have qualified as a real controversy, but it was not confirmed. Suarez has played with many black players in the past, and it has never sprung up. His clash with Evra might not really be racially-inclined. If he is involved in another controversy before his career ends, then I will be fine with keeping the article as it is well-written but for now I don't see him as a controversial soccer player just yet to warrant an article. People like Donald Trump, Mugabe, Lindslay Lohan, etc are examples of individuals that should have a controversy article, not Suarez.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not merit separate article. Giant Snowman 12:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The biting incidents are notable and are worthy of mention in the player's article, as they already are, since they are incidents that doe not occur widely in football. There is no need for a separate article, especially one that lumps together a number of other admittedly distasteful issues. Similar articles could be produced for a number of players but are not as they give undue weight to the incidents giving the impression that Suarez is more widely known for controversies than football. Fenix down (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I once downloaded a video of Suárez's greatest plays, and it was only three mega bytes. More seriously though, the article in Suárez himself is not so large that this breakout is required. Better to keep all the biographical details on a single page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:47, 20 January 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. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpabiswa[edit]

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

Non-notable publication that relies on a single independent source, part of which is sourced from the publisher as an interview. MT Train^Discuss 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 January 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social dreaming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Meandering essay, chock full of OR, lacking in sources and context. Nearly all sources originate from the same person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per claptrap, woo and ker-ching. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm concerned that the sourcing is so focussed on a single individual, so I see this as too PROMOTIONAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 January 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) 08:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steeltown (band)[edit]

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

Promotional page for non notable band. Whilst youtube shows they exist I have been unable to verify much else. Page claims they charted but I have found no sign of that happening. Page has a reference of Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia but that is a fake reference. The book does not have an entry for Steeltown. The link provide goes to a front page, not an entry. The original link shows as articleid 989 but 989 is the entry for Kings Cross which just directs readers to the entry for Massive Appendage. A search found no good sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to verify any entry on the Australian charts, unable to locate reliable (or almost any) references. Username of article creator indicates a COI and promotional article. Greyjoy^talk 06:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article fails WP:V, with a search for Steeltown not bringing up a single relevant result in post-1990 newspaper archives through Factiva. The claim that they "notably sold more recordings than any other band of the time based in the state of Queensland" seems like a WP:HOAX. Kb.au (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User @Richard3120: asked me whether they had any Australian chart success (I add a lot of lower Australian chart peaks to articles), and I can't find any evidence of a top 100-charting album or single in either the 1980s or 1990s in Australia. The chart positions and commercial success mentioned in the article are fictitious. Two singles are listed on discogs.com https://www.discogs.com/artist/6101407-Steeltown-2 , but that is it. They seem to be a fairly obscure act; I had never heard of them before.Nqr9 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: please note that I never canvassed Nqr9 for his opinion or asked him to post in this discussion, as you can see from the message I left on his talk page - I simply asked for confirmation that the chart position was fake, knowing that he owns copies of the Australian Chart Books and would be able to check quickly if it was true or not. As he has confirmed my suspicion, this band fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per duffbeerforme. McFarlane search yields no hits – duff's analysis is correct re: falsified ref. A search at APRA here, turns up a track, "Berlin Baby", performed by Steeltown written by Andrew Richmond. However it is not mentioned in this article and not seen on either single at discogs. A trove search, here for [Steeltown "Andy Richmond"] gives no hits.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:32, 13 January 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 Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. Page semi-protected. – Joe (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon[edit]

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

Notability concerns raised at the talk page, basically that she fails WP:GNG.The article was a redirect for some time, and is being now aggressively recreated by an IP. Ymblanter (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect. This IP is a sock puppet of User:Qais13. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect - this BLP is about a child, notability is not inherited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 January 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Normally I would relist and seek more input but this discussion has already received an unusual level of participation and I see no realistic likelihood of reaching consensus. I will respectfully suggest a brief delay before renominating to let people catch their breath and see what happens with the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Fong[edit]

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

Hopelessly promotional, and attempts to remove the puffery and leave an encyclopedic core have been repeatedly rejected by a series of spas and ip editors. much of it unencycopedic opinions about how clever she is, a good deal of it name-dropping about other people associated with her projects, extensive quotations to show "fantastic support" and the like, mostly about a minor power company that has not yet actually done anything, going to the extent of providing detail about the various grants that have been rejected. Since NOT ADVOCACY and NPOV are basic principles--policies much more important than details like the notability guideline, I think it's hopeless to have an article. If anyone thinks they can get a proper article, they're welcome to try, but it's beyond me. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are promotionally worded pieces touting the subject as a Wonder Woman who founded a company! Unable to see how this qualifies for WP:BIO and WP:N based on these sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Continual NPOV violations and edit warring to keep in promotional material and trivial unencyclopedic content. Also, see this statement by DGG at BLP noticeboard regarding the subject. [30] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established by an array of references from top tier sources. Tone could be more encyclopedic, sure, but perhaps it is accurately encyclopedic to describe Danielle as a far above average human. I would suggest that nearly the entire funding and development section be moved to the LightSail Energy article. Kevin143 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current incarnation without prejudice This version has seen appreciable gameplaying, and in a few cases, excessive trimming as well. Neither suits any encyclopedia. She is clearly "notable enough" for something closer to a biography than the current mishmash is. Collect (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in so much as this has been done, would you switch your vote to keep for the current version of the page that's a bit less strange? Kevin143 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete This person is marginally notable and is under severe promotional pressure. It is not worth our effort to try to maintain this page in a neutral state. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Marginally notable at best. There are plenty of Forbes' 30 under 30 lists every year. Edwardx (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the bulk of the promotional content about LightSail Energy has been removed from this page. The same goes for any promotional-sounding content about Fong. taa (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the original state of the article was terrible and it will have to be watched carefully to make sure that the promotional stuff is not allowed to creep back in. However, there does seem to be enough material out there to support a brief biography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, there might have been promotional material in this article, but Fong herself is clearly notable enough to merit a page, and it is extremely well sources. Wikinewby2017 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable well over the threshold for a page. Current events re: LightSail hibernation make it more so. Should add more NPOV content re: LightSail founding and hibernation from these articles. Ryan (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. "Forbes' 30 under 30 in the Energy category" is a minor honour and does not help with notability. Sources are PR driven and / or passing mentions. Such content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal and a CNBC video feature? https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-storage-startup-lightsail-plots-long-term-game-plan-1456110323 https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/09/a-lot-of-hot-air-why-energy-storage-matters.html For an entrepreneur, what kinds of press hits are a better establisher of notability than that? I thought notability was very clearly established by the array of references on the previous version of the article and we should have preserved those references on the talk page. Can anyone else do that? I'm confused on the right way to copy and paste those from the previous version of the article. Kevin143 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UN High Level Council keynote? http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/conferencessummits/sustainable-development-goals-summit-new-york-25-27-september-2015/watch/danielle-fong-lightsail-energy-ecosoc-high-level-segment-2012/1717208886001 As that's from 2012 I don't think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kevin143 (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hundreds of people on Forbes lists. Her company is mostly vaporware (pun notwithstanding). Moreover, she has been posting on Facebook to get people to spam this edit page to keep the article live. https://www.facebook.com/einfall/posts/10101226623548382?pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.65.20.101 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Forbes lists are just not a sign of notability. It seems like every time I turn around I learn of another one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current form did not strike me as out of place. Our culture has a problem with ambitious women, and it seems to me that strict application of the rules in this case is more an artifact of some biases people might not realise they have. Please keep this article up. 131.111.5.181 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She seems like a wonderful person but her bio doesn't clear the bar for notability guidelines, let alone the NPOV and NOT ADVOCACY questions. She is young, but her main claim to fame seems to have raised money from notable Silicon Valley investors. Impressive networking skills and vision, but that's about it. The barrage of edit warring and ip also raises questions. Similarly the soliciting of votes to keep the page alive as mentioned is quite suspicious. Either way:

- Her company seems to have fizzled out. While unfortunate, can't deny makes it less important of a point to be a founder of. We can't have profile pages for every company in Silicon Valley whose founder raises money. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lightsail-energy-cheap-compressed-air-storage-hibernation

- Forbes publishes a list of couple hundred people of "X under X" every year. There are multiple lists (Finance, Media, Etc). It's not a critically acclaimed honor, assigned by an independent set of jurors. We shouldn't treat Forbes awards meaningfully in general.

- Other profile pieces seems mostly PR pieces, comes with running any sort of company. Should be on the company page.

- Her blog seems largely inactive for the past few years and most of the posts are about her company. Would be surprised if she has any readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.246.138 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fong is clearly notable enough. If these three people deserve wikipedia pages, then so does Fong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Distler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Freidel

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Nicolai_(Physiker)

11solar11 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. 198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third entry in the other stuff list is from German Wikipedia. I take it Hermann Nicolai doesn't have a page in the English version? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Hermann Nicolai should most certainly have an article here. He is Direktor of the Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik in Potsdam-Golm, a major research institution of the highest importance,and editor of a major journal. Will certainly meet WP:PROF on many counts, and almost certainly GNG as well. The other two also are physicists of considerable distinction, and will easily meet WP:PROF. Even listing these for comparison indications the inability to realistically evaluate the subject--Fong's highest academic achievement was to drop out of a PhD program. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid straw man arguments here, DGG. I am not saying Nicolai does not deserve an article. I have also not said that Fong has higher achievements in academia than these professors. The point I am making is that she is notable - at least as much so as those on this list.11solar11 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient notability. Dilaton (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

even just now, garbage like this. really we need to delete and salt this. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Forbes and Wired are enough for GNG. Perhaps a 6 month lock on the article would prevent puffery by bad IP editors.198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment making a 30 under 30 list isn't enough to be notable. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women discussion. Would need significant coverage on her, not just a company announcement. If the AFD results in a delete, retarget to LightSail Energy of which she is founder. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in The Chronicle Herald [31] [32] , MIT Technology Review [33], Wired (magazine) [34] , Wall Street Journal [35]. Fortune (magazine) [36], Greentech Media [37], Huffington Post [38] (5 women you should know in STEM), The Atlantic [39]. Almost all of these articles go into her history, with The Atlantic and others doing exclusive interviews with her. The articles also don't refer to her notability exclusively as a 30 under 30 either, but rather their own lists. I'll add that the previously expanded article had an excessive amount of peacock, and was rightfully WP:TNTed or relegated to her business article, and stuff like "enjoying Burning Man" should definitely not be in the article unless she personally worked on Burning Man in a significant manner. But she is still notable and easily meets WP:GNG on the coverage from the media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC) updated 18:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked out the awards from her infobox. Also added connected contributor tag on her talk page. I would support page-protection so that only editors who can edit in a NPOV way can contribute, at least to get the clamor coming from her advocates on Twitter. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post is notoriously unusable as a RS for notability , because the editor makes a point of letting the contributors print what they want. The Chronicle-Herald is a local paper celebrating a local person; MIT Review is an interview where she says what she pleases--these never show notability because they are customarily placed by PR agents; Ditto the others. "Go into her history" means she tells them the samething each time, just like all PR. "Exclusive interview" means nothing more than interview, not a press conference. And their own lists don't mean any more than the Forbes list--it's just a convenient format to provide a place for several PR items that don't merit full articles in the paper--smany newspapers do have some standards for these things. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 18 January 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 Kraken in popular culture. Selectively. Sandstein 19:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken in comics[edit]

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

Appears to be primarily WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY and trivia. Kraken in popular culture can easily suffice for any significant mentions in pop culture, including comics. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kraken in popular culture. Ordinarily I'd say this is a spinout that doesn't need to exist, but this one is one of the very rare occasions where the spinout is less crufty (though still very crufty) and better sourced than the merge target. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article used to be two different ones merged together into a patchwork of random stuff. I say we revert them back to their previous incarnations that used the Marvel/DC devide. I do not at all support deleting all it's edit history and content (too interesting, great example of how an article can go wrong in development), but a redirect to Kraken in popular culture would be fine.★Trekker (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kraken in popular culture. Not big enough to warrant being separate from all the other media types. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the article should be split into two separate articles covering both comic companies (as how it was originally conceived). I think there is too much information written on it to simply be condensed into a small section on a separate page (Kraken in Popular Culture). It should also be noted that this article was nominated twice for deletion in the past and both times it passed. How many times can an article be nominated for deletion?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 January 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) 08:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parcels (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC most press coverage seems to be about their one song "Overnight" with Daft Punk SeraphWiki (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NMUSIC #1 states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This article has four, and as it's a very brief stub that could easily be added to if it were expanded. There is no reasonable basis for this AfD: it appears to be a retaliatory nomination for my criticising the nominator about his rude and arbitrary behaviour towards Articles for Creation submitters. Of which, apparently, what he thinks is a reasonable response is to start targeting articles that I'd reviewed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, AXE sells concert tickets, they can not be considered an independent source for music articles. NME and Vogue are interviews, which are also excluded under WP:NMUSIC. An AfC reviewer should be familiar with the notability policy. I should also add that I did not check to see who reviewed the article before nominating. I saw an article very similar to others that have been deleted (notable for only one collaborative song) and I have been cleaning up the newly accepted articles all day, which often have cites to Wikipedia and other errors that reviewers miss if they are not using certain tools - so it has nothing to do with the personal attacks that you posted to my talk page (without evidence). SeraphWiki (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC says absolutely nothing about interviews being excluded. Even if, for argument's sake, we discount the AXS article (which is not promoting any tour or concert), that's still three references meeting WP:NMUSIC #1 for a three sentence stub. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising

I should add that I am not criticizing your acceptance. The decision of whether an article ultimately meets the notability standard for inclusion can't and should not be made by one reviewer. There is an article from the Guardian and there are a few others that are not cited like this but they are all about the collaboration with Daft Punk. See this recent AfD that closed delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Nash with a similar situation. The decision of whether to keep an article is ultimately left up to consensus in cases like this, so I am not criticizing you for accepting the draft.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't matter if much of the coverage has been about the song, it is still their song. More coverage exists as well. eg. [40] [41]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to approve this at AfC on the basis that it met GNG, but TDW had beat me to it. Seems like this nom is POINTy behaviour by SeraphWiki. Kb.au (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I personally would not have approved it for mainspace until the sourcing was at least improved from the current version. Maybe reviewers don't know that interviews are not independent, secondary sources under WP:NMUSIC, but AfD is not a place for personal attacks. I absolutely think that this article fails WP:NMUSIC and is indistinguishable from other articles that have recently been deleted, but this AfD has taken on a personal tone by comments mostly from other reviewers protecting the article so I am not going to push for it. I think it may be still be deleted sometime in the future, as I think other editors will be reluctant to comment now that editors have inappropriately personalized the AfD discussion to protect an article that would otherwise be deleted without controversy. Has there been any news coverage since that one single in 2017? We can wait a few years and maybe sources will become available, but if they don't, most articles like this will eventually be deleted at AfD. I think it should be deleted, but I'm not going to push for it, there is no need for personal attacks here. SeraphWiki (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this meets the GNG. Some web mentions not in the article:

Billboard (mentioned above); Sydney Morning Herald (mentioned above); The Courier Mail (mentioned above); The Northern Star; Volterre; TheMusic.com.au (pre-'Overnight'); sfd; DIY magazine; The 405 (about a different song); INDIE magazine (pre-'Overnight'); Vogue Paris (different interview than the one in the article); ABC's Triple J

I'm not saying they're all RSs, and certainly some are interviews, but they add up to a sense that there's attention being paid to the band. The quotes in this (which is pure churnalism, useless as a source in itself) suggest there's more coverage on top of that. All in all, I think the article is well worth keeping and I hope Randall Peltzer sticks around to work on it or other topics. Mortee (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NMUSIC. Not just a one song mention, with additional sources available per Duffbeerforme or Mortee.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really expecting this AfD to generate this much interest. You can see the very similar one for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Nash closed with barely any discussion. I have never seen so many editors agree before that interviews and brief one-paragraph articles like this from The 405 pass WP:NMUSIC. There have been a couple of music drafts I have wanted to pass but objectively I don't believe the sourcing will meet the community standard for independent sources, so I have left them for other reviewers.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 405 one doesn't count for much on its own, sure; just part of a suggestive collection. If all these publications, and those in the article references, think the band is worth talking about (and, yes, to) I'd say it follows that we can as well.

As an alternative approach, I think this from Radio 1 implies it's on rotation there, which would pass WP:NMUSIC #11. This 17 minute live performance on Radio 1 must pass NMUSIC #12 (if their appearance on Conan didn't). I must admit, I hadn't heard of them until I saw the AfD, but I'm enjoying getting to know them, so I'm rapidly losing objectivity in the matter :-) Mortee (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the 17 minute performance on BBC satisfies NMUSIC 12. Thank you for making an effort to improve the article mid-AfD. SeraphWiki (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, it's been fun. Thanks for introducing me to new music! Mortee (talk) 06:37, 13 January 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. Sandstein 19:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John McGrath (soldier)[edit]

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

John McGrath was a soldier in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (technician fifth grade) and highest award (Bronze Star) make him non-notable under WP:SOLDIER. His post-war work as a truck driver and in firefighting earned him no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another brave man who did his bit for the country but nothing more than thousands of others. MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another brave man who did his bit for the country but nothing more than thousands of others other than to be portrayed in a major miniseries on HBO and be covered in multiple reliable and verifiable sources, the kind that affirm notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being an incidental subject in a broad miniseries is just not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing indicates significance here. Notability is not inherited from the notable TV series, and there's nothing better. Fails WP:SOLDIER / WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failure of WP:SOLDIER--Rusf10 (talk) 07:00, 19 January 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. Nomination withdrawn, no other delete !votes. So Why 08:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Homer[edit]

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

While semi-reliably sourced, this doesn't indicate notability and a BEFORE fails to redeem. Chetsford (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very substantially covered in reliavle independent sources. For example BBC article about her calls her a trailblazer and credits her with driving Topshop international growth. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with FloridaArmy that the subject is covered in several reliable sources which are independent of the subject. They include significant coverage which satisfies the standard to pass WP:GNG. These sources include BBC, Evening Standard, Retail Week and Finantial times. I found two addition references after the BBC source was found. Lacypaperclip (talk)
Keep In view of the great updates uncovered and made by FA and LP, I withdraw my nomination and support KEEP. Thanks guys - great work! Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 12 January 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.