Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 January	28 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani Nobel laureates

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

The article represents such things already existing in List of Nobel laureates by country. And just two entries exist here, with two americans with Indian included here. This article should be redirected to List of Nobel laureates by country মাখামাখি (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination gives no policy based reason for why this list article should be deleted, but argues it should be redirected to List of Nobel laureates by country. This is a solution that could have been proposed prior to coming to AFD by boldly blanking and redirecting per policy, but it was not. It can still be sought through reaching consensus on the article talk page. (This AFD page needs proper formatting and transclution in todays log, please see WP:AFDHOW2.) Sam Sailor 18:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. This is a revenge nomination after a set of articles created by the nom were put up for AfD. Also, the nom has now been blocked for this very type of disruption. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Took a quick look at the article. Appears to me it's worth keeping. It has 3 existing references from 2015, also 1 reference from Washington post newspaper.Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly valid, and referenced list and contained notable people with defined inclusion criteria. Notewirthy is, this is clear revenge nomination after the nominator's articles are AfD'ed. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep If redirection is an acceptable option for the nominator, then the nominator should not have brought the article to AfD in the first place. (Also, it's a perfectly acceptable topic for a list anyway.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is — and the others are — eminently notable and definitively established by WP:RS. There are a very limited number of potential lists like these (limited, albeit growing, number of countries and winners) and are absolutely bringing readers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural note, the nominator is currently blocked and thus unable to participate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep nom by a blocked user. samee ^talk 17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Snow/speedy keep. A revenge nomination with no policy rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Nobel laureates

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

The article represents such things already existing in List of Nobel laureates by country. And This article should be redirected to List of Nobel laureates by country মাখামাখি (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination gives no policy based reason for why this list article should be deleted, but argues it should be redirected to List of Nobel laureates by country. This is a solution that could have been proposed prior to coming to AFD by boldly blanking and redirecting per policy, but it was not. It can still be sought through reaching consensus on the article talk page. (This AFD page needs proper formatting and transclution in todays log, please see WP:AFDHOW2.) Sam Sailor 18:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. This is a revenge nomination after a set of articles created by the nom were put up for AfD. Also, the nom has now been blocked for this very type of disruption. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No valid deletion rationale advanced. If redirection is an acceptable option for the nominator, then the nominator should not have brought the article to AfD in the first place. Besides that, it's an acceptable topic for a list anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is — and the others are — eminently notable and definitively established by WP:RS. There are a very limited number of potential lists like these (limited, albeit growing, number of countries and winners) and are absolutely bringing readers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural note, the nominator is currently blocked and thus unable to participate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean Nobel laureates

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

The article represents such things already existing in List of Nobel laureates by country. And just one entry (!!!) exist here, with some non-Koreans born here. This article should be redirected to List of Nobel laureates by country মাখামাখি (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination gives no policy based reason for why this list article should be deleted, but argues it should be redirected to List of Nobel laureates by country. This is a solution that could have been proposed prior to coming to AFD by boldly blanking and redirecting per policy, but it was not. It can still be sought through reaching consensus on the article talk page. (This AFD page needs proper formatting and transclution in todays log, please see WP:AFDHOW2.) Sam Sailor 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. This is a revenge nomination after a set of articles created by the nom were put up for AfD. Also, the nom has now been blocked for this very type of disruption. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly valid, and referenced list and contained notable people with defined inclusion criteria. Also as I said in the other nominations, this is clear revenge nomination after the nominator's unreferenced articles are AfD'ed. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep If redirection is an acceptable option for the nominator, then the nominator should not have brought the article to AfD in the first place. (Also, it's a fine topic for a list anyway.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is — and the others are — eminently notable and definitively established by WP:RS. There are a very limited number of potential lists like these (limited, albeit growing, number of countries and winners) and are absolutely bringing readers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural note, the nominator is currently blocked and thus unable to participate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TaoTronics

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

The subject doesn't appear to be notable. Sources are product reviews at best and do not cover the subject in any detail. For example, none of the "History" section's sources mention the history at all. The article also blatantly misrepresents its subject; according to the sources it's a brand, not a company in its own right. Huon (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand exists, not notable. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article setting out the brand's wares, supported by product notices, one of which concedes the brand is not well-known. In the absence of evidence of the brand's encyclopaedic notability, the coverage at Sunvalley Group is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 14:37, 28 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) 01:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The One Percent (TV series)

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

This is a stub article for a TV series that was ordered in August 2014, but after multiple delays the network dropped it in March 2017. Since then, there haven't been any news regarding the status of production. -- Radiphus 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable unmade production. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never create a TV show article without an airdate or else this is the result. Show is done, fork stuck in and all. Nate • (chatter) 01:32, 28 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) 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube

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

This page is somewhat of a content fork of List of most-viewed YouTube videos and fails WP:NOTDIR point #6 (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). We do not need a list of every subgenre of "most viewed" videos on YouTube; the main page handles that well enough. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists are generally important and should be preserved. But this is just not what Wikipedia is for, it totally fails WP:NOTDIR, it serves no useful purpose and it is basically Youtube trivia. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTDIR as a clear cut case of a non-encyclopedic cross categorisation. Also fails WP:NOTWEBHOST as the link to every video is included. Ajf773 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR Hagennos (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MT Train^Discuss 10:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the information is ephemeral at best, delete as not a directory. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ephemeral is probably too generous; the information is constantly in flux. More to the point, Wikipedia is not the best place to list most-watched Youtube videos; there is already a great resource for this information.

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

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

The result was delete. This might or might not meet GNG (but most likely not) but the copyvio concerns here swing this to delete. If folks want to demonstrate GNG, they can submit a draft at WP:AFC or WP:DELREV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Brown

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Mayor of Minden is not a notable position.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Earwig finds no suggestion of copyright issues. What's your assessment of notability? Mortee (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet GNG, if you think it is copied from somewhere, show us the link to the prior material. --RAN (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a small town mayor with small town coverage. We need to stop interpreting GNG to make it so it can be passed with an article in any two-bit newspaper. This is just plain an unreasonable criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in sources cited is enough to pass WP:GNG. If it's a copyvio, prove it and it can be speedied. If not, we rely on WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: The article's creator, Billy Hathorn, typically copied content from written sources that aren't online. It's difficult to prove copyvio in such cases, especially since the sources he used are micro-local, but it was his MO, and the reason he was banned from Wikipedia. See Bearcat's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. B. George. Marquardtika (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as a mayor of a small town, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO since the coverage is local and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Tobin

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there does seem to be copying in part of the article, which should be cleaned out, but the article was not created by Billy Hathorn so his involvement isn't a good enough reason to delete. The question as always is notability. Mortee (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, not sure how I messed that one up; presumably didn't go back to the start of the article history. It was created by them and there is copyvio, so simplest to Delete and recreate if he's notable. Mortee (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the first x-thing mayor of a small town does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Byars

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local coverage of a mayor is expected but does not show they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – elected, recalled, convicted of felony, lots of press coverage; what more does GNG need? Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Being mayor of Minden does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. He may possibly pass WP:CRIME, however you're going to need better sources than the Minden Press-Herald to prove that. Regardless, given that the article is likely a copyvio, let's delete and someone else can recreate if proper sourcing can be found to support the CRIME notability claim.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Batton

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every mayor of Minden is notable, that is the only way this guy possibly could be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Mayor of Minden is just not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J.E. "Pat" Patterson

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irretrievable copyright violation created by the banned user mentioned. Mortee (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another failure of the reasonable guidelines that local mayors are only notable with widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 30 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, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank T. Norman

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without commenting on the copyright violation concerns, the article fails WP:NPOL. There is no coverage beyond routine local coverage of a mayor, and the position itself is not notable. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even mayor of a small city (population under 10,000 at the time) is notable, and nothing makes him indistinguishable from literally thousands other such people serving at any given time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 30 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 without prejudice to a future renomination if after a reasonable period of time it appears that the subject may fail notability guidelines based on a lack of SUSTAINED coverage and clear evidence of long term significance of this event. Currently it is likely too early to form definitive judgements on whether or not those criteria will be met. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post close addendum This close is w/o prejudice to a potential move which was raised by several editors. Just ensure there is consensus, which can be established in a discussion on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Ghanbari

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

Should be deleted per WP:1E. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Mhhossein ^talk 19:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The death of this fellow was the result of official action by the Iranian government. Arrested for involvement in the recent economic protests, he was transferred to a prison that is well-known as a torture facility and one in which protestors have been murdered previously. This is not an isolated or PR event, this is an historically significant event during which this fellow was murdered. As an on-going event there are unknown elements which may emerge to justify a larger article but this death alone is still significant. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sina Ghanbari has been killed during the recent public protests in Iran and his case has been discussed by the Iranian parliamentarians and has many significant sources.Alex-h (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant extremely widely covered event as evident in even a cursory BEFORE. Should be renamed to ~~Death and torture of Sina Ghanbari~~ Torture and death of Sina Ghanbari or something similar as the event is noteworthy, the bio not as 1E.Icewhiz (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Modified proposed name per TGS's comments below. Torture was a significant and well covered part of this.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely covered event indeed. Should be renamed though. AfD is not a clean-up service so I suggest a clean up when this AfD is closed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin: Except one, none of the comments addressed the very crucial 1E issue! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the issue is effectively addressed by editors urging a change in article title. I will add that people not notable in life can and often do become notable when their death draws widespread attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:SIGCOV, and rename ~~Death and torture of Sina Ghanbari,~~ or similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Move to Torture and death of Sina Ghanbari.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be picky, but Torture and death of Sina Ghanbari makes more sense since torture came before her death. Or just Death of Sina Ghanbari since that seems to be the common title for similar articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all who have said to keep it. It is a consensus therefore, the page should remain. Many internationally well known sources have reported his death under torture. I do agree with E.M. Gregory. Good point. Grateful. Alex-h (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's apparently a consensus over the WP:ONEEVENT problem as mentioned by the nominator and some others. I'm going to add that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Given the sources covering the issue I suggest merging it with articles such as 2017–18 Iranian protests. Lstfllw203 (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussions. We are being led to keep the article given the notability of the issue and durable effect this death has left behind. To merge with the suggested articles is minimizing the event particularly when the articles are very long. Therefore I respectfully believe the article should remain. Alex-h (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything in the world is a "single event". 9/11 was a single event, and so was the boston bombing. What WP:1E means is that if a single event did not have lasting impact, then we should delete the page. Just saying that "this was a single event" is no bueno in my opinion. Now this event has had lasting impact, and therefore it does not fall under one event. The article should be kept, without a merger. Elektricity (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John T. David

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that a small town newspaper speaks of the mayor of that town is not enough to justify an article. The tombstone inscription and the minor mention in the obituary of someone else in a Shreveport Paper just do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as a mayor of a small town, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO since the coverage is local and / or routine. The crime is minor and does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Calhoun Brown

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 17:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as a mayor of a small town, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO since the coverage is local and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David William Thomas

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Here is the copyright detector link ("violation possible" at 47.9%) Marquardtika (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the article is a mess anyway, the notes in the infobox are something I've never seen before. This guy may have been the most interesting mayor of Minden, but it still doesn't make him notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I compared a New York Times obituary with an Associated Press obituary a few years ago with the same tool, I got a 70% match. What percent is a copyright violation? There are only so many ways you can list the facts of a person's life in chronological order in prose. The biggest differences in obits were how much of the death is in the lede paragraph and how much in the last paragraph. --RAN (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This comes no where close to meeting any notability requirements. It is part of a walled garden of articles on local level politicians. There is no justification for having articles on mayors of such a minor place, let alone on all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 30 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) 01:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry L. Bridges

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing notable about this guy either, fails WP:POLITICIAN--Rusf10 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references appear to me to meet GNG, and if you think it is copied from somewhere, show us the link to the prior material. --RAN (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of such a small town are no where near notable. Small town newspaper articles from over half a century ago are just not the things passing GNG is made of. For a local politician to be notable, we need to show that the media coverage is significantly more than is normal for local politicians. Otherwise, we would need to create tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of more articles on small city mayors. Except we are woefully behind in even creating articles on members of US state legislatures, a group that in theory we should have an article on every person who ever was such. Don't even get me started on how we do not have articles on even all the current members of the legisltive body of Ghana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 30 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) 01:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connell Fort

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN- only coverage is from the local paper.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minden Louisiana is today too small a place to make the mayor notable, it was even smaller when Fort was mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Matt Lowe

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this should have been deleted the first time, small-town mayor, clearly fail WP:POLITICIAN--Rusf10 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references appear to meet GNG, and if you think it is copied from somewhere, show us the link to the prior material. --RAN (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are all local coveage, which for a local level politician will never be enough to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG guidelines. Further guidelines unnecessary. He doesn't have to meet the additional criteria. See the guideline - "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.". References indicates notability.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a longstanding community consensus that politicians require extensive coverage in non-local reliable sources. Small town pols rarely meet this standard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as a mayor of a small town, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO since the coverage is local and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic P. Reichey

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

fails WP:NPOL, county-level politicians are not given automatic notability. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in any reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough information in his two obituaries one from New Jersey and one from Schenectady for a stand alone article. the Schenectady is behind a paywall at Genealogy Bank and my subscription has expired. --RAN (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two obituaries in local newspapers do not give someone notability. Having enough information to write an aritcle and establishing notability are two different things.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no restrictions in WP:GNG on using local media as reliable sources for notability. If you want to change the GNG, lobby for changes on the talk page there. --RAN (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just an issue of local media, you're relying on obituaries, that's routine coverage. When you, I, or anyone else here passes, we'll have obituaries in the local newspaper too, it doesn't establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go again, I will just cut and paste again WP:Routine: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." No mention of obits as you already know ... and please don't bother with "these are just examples" if they meant obits they would have mentioned them. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how you love to copy and paste that, everything must be a literal reading. So my grandparents both got obits in local newspapers, can I write articles on them? It's funny though you started with everyone who has a New York Times obit gets an article and now its anyone who has an obit anywhere gets an article. So I guess pretty much all dead people have defacto notability. Your keep argument should be summed up as "Keep- dead people are notable."--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are listed as examples of what qualifies as routine coverage, not as the entire list of everything that qualifies. Obituaries are routine, because every single person who exists at all gets one somewhere whether they passed a Wikipedia notability criterion or not. My grandparents would qualify for Wikipedia articles if the existence of an obituary in the local newspaper was all it took. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would violate the "Wikipedia is not genealogy" rule. Lobby to get WP:GNG and lobby to get WP:Routine changed, then you delete tens of thousands of biographies instead of dozens. --RAN (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That says "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.". If we want to read that literally, it only applies to listing relatives in subject's article. It says nothing about creating new topics for each person.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While RAN is correct that WP:GNG doesn't preclude local coverage from being included in the notability pool, we do have a consensus that if a person fails all of our SNGs, and so you're shooting for "still notable just because media coverage exists" instead, then that media coverage does have to extend beyond the purely local and routine. For similar examples, an actress who has had only local stage roles with the local youth theatre company, but has never had a film or television role that might actually get her over WP:NACTOR, does not clear GNG just because she's been profiled in the local newspaper; the owner of a local non-chain restaurant does not clear GNG just because the local newspaper's food critic wrote a restaurant review; and smalltown mayors do not clear GNG just because their death resulted in an obituary in their local newspaper just as could be simply expected for any mayor of anywhere. If a person;s notability claim passes an SNG as a topic of legitimately broad interest, then we don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is (a state legislator doesn't have to get nationalized coverage to qualify for an article, for example) — but if you're going for "doesn't pass any SNG but is still notable under GNG just because press coverage exists", then you do have to show significantly more press coverage than other equivalent people at the same level of significance could also show. But nothing here passes NPOL, and none of the coverage suggests a reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm for an otherwise non-notable role. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for politicians coverage needs to be more than routine local coverage. That is not achieved here. RAN would have us keep the current system where a few places have dedicated local historians mining old nespaper archieves and get articles on people orders of magnitude less notable than we get for any other place. This is not the way to approach creating a world-wide Encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine unimportant career with routine unimportant coverage. The only US newspaper om which having a full obit is accepted here as a sufficient indication of notability is the NYTimes. He wouldn't have been notable when alive, and his death didn't increase it. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Cecil

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

A nn songwriter; does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Being one of the four contributors credited with a song is an insufficient claim on significance; for a relevant AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Rice (3rd nomination). Created by Special:Contributions/Sonyatvnashville, currently indef blocked as a spam only account. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising by an obvious corporate account, presumably closely connected to Sony/ATV Nashville. This is native advertising as defined by the FTC, and thus probably illegal. We don't tolerate promotion of any kind; we most certainly cannot tolerate illegal promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NOTSPAM. MER-C 12:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 28 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Steiner

(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:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads a bit like a CV, so it's likely an autobiography. There is no independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources that I have found in my searching. So I recommend delete. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just mentions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a blogger, and his academic contributions do not yet rise to a level to make him notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 30 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CertaPet

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

The sources provide no in-depth, significant coverage of the subject and are not primarily about the subject.

[1] quotes a representative of the the company
[2] one mention of filling a form
[3] subject is used to provide a quote
[4] peripheral mention
[5] reporting is about emotional support animals, not the subject.

Mduvekot (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional cruft on a nn company; fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORPDEPTH failure. The most reliable source cited in the article (The Economist) has nothing to do with the article subject at all, being used only to provide a quote from CertaPet.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) !dave 10:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teresita Barajuen

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

The individual represented in this article received a brief burst of attention due to her age, which tapered off after her death. All three sources in this article, as well as nearly all the others that I could find in a good-faith search, are obituaries, which does not suggest that the subject meets the level of coverage that would satisfy the requirements of WP:N. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and, in this case, any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia Canadian Paul 15:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: world's longest-serving nun, coverage across the other side other big pond; quietly notable. PamD 10:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is it a problem if nearly all the available sources are obituaries? I can't find any guidance suggesting so. I've found more recent (and non-obituary) coverage but what I found there was briefer and did not add anything to what had already been reported. And the "event" is not solely that she lived a long time, or that she was in the monastery a long time – what is covered, briefly, is her quiet life. For me, a nice little biography. I'd have no interest in her name being included in a list of longest anything or a list of people who met the pope in strange circumstances. Thincat (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view, this bio does meet our general notability guidelines. The three sources already in the article are all legit, and the book refered to in the text of the article is probably legit, as well. There's no rule I know of that says obits are not enough. This one just doesn't look like the eldercruft AfD's noted by the nominator. The facts are not just about her daily life, what she ate to stay healthy or ~~where~~ who she beat in some mythical longevity competition. David in DC (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more refs. They're still obits, but I think this many obits does meet the GNG requirements of multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputable about her and her claim of notability meets and exceeds the WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The longest serving cloistered nun is quite an achievement, especially in the modern age. Notable enough to be the subject of independent coverage around the world. Plus, there are also Spanish-language and domestic sources that could be incorporated as well. ABC - from before her death ABC (newspaper) La Voz de Cádiz Scanlan (talk) 02:13, 30 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) 01:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Francis

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

I don't see any evidence of this individual meeting WP:ENTERTAINER or the broader WP:N guidelines. The references on the page provide primarily trivial coverage of the subject, and none appear to indicate the kind of sustained coverage in independent, reliable, third-party sources that would satisfy WP:N. I undertook a good-faith effort to locate more substantial sources on the subject, but could not. Canadian Paul 14:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one significant role is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her stage name was Jean Jay and she had plenty of credits under that name. See the British Film Institute. Andrew D. (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Are you sure? Birth date in BFI differs by 6 years from that in article. PamD 11:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: her play Western Wind was performed in the West End, and the fact that she is listed there under a different spelling ("Frances") suggests that more research will find even more information. PamD 11:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: in agreement with PamD's comment. Xenxax (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted it is Jean Jay, her birth name was actually Charlotte Frances Jiggens. Are we using her stage name, this article or her real birth name (Frances with an e and Jiggens)? Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok bit confused now, is it the same one...? Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is wrong, no surprise there. Her birth name was Charlotte Frances Jiggens, her Australian stage name was Charlotte Francis, her British stage name was Jean Jay. She is best known as Charlotte Francis from what I can gather. Szzuk (talk)

@Szzuk: I'm a bit confused as well... it seems that Jean Jay would probably pass WP:N, so I could probably withdraw in that case, but I must be missing where the proof is that Charlotte Francis and Jean Jay are the same person. Can someone make it really obvious to me? Canadian Paul 10:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on ancestry.com to get her birth name and linked the different stage names to her husband via google, so there isn't a simple webpage I can direct you towards. Szzuk (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A merger conversation can take place outside of AfD if desired. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girl of Enghelab Street

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

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

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

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

Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a one event violation. I have to admit I hate that a 31-year-old woman is called a girl in the title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly significant, @Johnpacklambert people started calling her "The Girl of Enghelab Street" on social media while no one knew she is 31, just because she looks young from the picture, I did not title that. Mjbmr (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjbmr: What makes her "Strongly significant"? The article title can always be changed if the subject is notable enough to have an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir I'm not arguing about the title, I was just clarifying for @Johnpacklambert where the title came from. The subject it self, is significant, trending since 27 Dec, biggest protest since 2009 against Iranian government, the picture of the woman being called as a "symbol of defiance/freedom" for Iranians. Mjbmr (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the event might be significant, but the individual is not notable outside of the event. Merge content into article on the event.--Rpclod (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rpclod The event is about the individual which is significant. Mjbmr (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the fact she is the poster girl for a protest against Iran does not make her notable in my opinion. If relevant you could write about her in the 2017–18 Iranian protests article. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered photograph and video. More coverage from today following her release from prison. Title should probably be renamed, but the photograph of the woman holding up a hijab has become iconic, converted to cartoon and meme form as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there have been repeat and solidarity protests today. In particular one has been covered by RS: Second woman arrested in Tehran for hijab protest.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir, @Johnpacklambert, @Rpclod With more coverage from today and yesterday, I assume the article is not about just one person anymore, it's about a movement. Mjbmr (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is already an article about the movement at 2017–18 Iranian protests. This article is only about the one girl. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

While linked and amplified in some Western reporting (in particular calls for her freedom and whereabouts) this is actually not connected. This protest took place a day+ before the Iranian protests erupted (and in a city, Teharan, that was not the initial outbreak) and we are seeing copycat protests after the Iranian protests are over - this was an issue regarding coverage of this event in 2017–18 Iranian protests. This event (and shows of support, memes, and copycats) is standalone notable - she has become the poster woman of the anti hijab coercion movement in Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the most prominent avant-garde activist against mandatory hijab in Iran. --Pirsharafshah (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Pirsharafshah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Delete - Pointless content fork. She isn't notable outside the event and Wikipedia is not news. For these types of stories, we are adviced to write at the main article, and, if necessary, review if the topic necessitates a seperate article. Doing the complete is why we have so many poorly-constructed news articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content for of what? There is no main article - this occured prior to the Iranian protests.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I guess it's too soon to make decision about deletion of this article. We still need to wait and observe the the consequence and future effects of her action. If it turns to a continuing movement of similar actions among other people (which apparently it has already started) or becomes a large scale campaign, then she will meet the notability criteria, as was the case for Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire, which became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution as well as the Arab Spring. Therefore, I believe this nomination should be postponed for the next 6-12 months to see the results of her action. FaraM 04:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards thinking Iranianson. We don't wait for things to become notable -- they either are or they are not. The proper procedure is to wait 6-12 months to create the article when notability is established...or it isn't.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick:, Then, we can possibly move the content into the other article (perhaps there should be an article on "The Resistance Movement of Iranian Women Against Islamic Hijab"); Meanwhile and for the time being, I think we should keep the page and title and redirect the page to the new section of the second article. FaraM 05:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a single event. The event was repeated yesterday and you can see the media coverage. In persian it's known with the title "Girl of Enghelab Street" (دختر خیابان انقلاب) and "Girls of Enghelab Street" (دختران خیابان انقلاب).

These are from January 29th media coverage In pesrian: Euronews, Radio France Internationale, Deutsche Welle

And in English: Guardian, The New York Times, Daily Mail. SlowManifesto (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SlowManifesto: See WP:BLP1E. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi dear fellow @Emir of Wikipedia:, thank you for your amazing helps here in wiki, but I think unfortunately you're wrong in this case. It is an ongoing protest movement in Iran, and famous enough to have article here. But I still would like to thank you and assume it as a good one. Happy Editing! The Stray Dog Talk Page 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has sparked an ongoing and widespread event throughout the country. Alex-h (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear to me that the article is now about a group, rather than a single person, therefore the deletion rationale (case of WP:BLP1E) no longer applies. I am surprised also that it seems to have remained separate to the main article on the 2017–18 Iranian protests which started mere days later, and that despite being a movement all of it's own, has no other main article. Taking all these factors into account, and seeing the new sources and significant support, I have struck my comments above and now recommend keep. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ilyina Olya Yakovna above, I too struck my previous !vote. Sometimes news and its potential notability becomes apparent faster than others. That does not excuse how premature news-based articles tend to be, it should actually motivate editors to excercise a little bit more patience.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge; Another WP:BLP1E like this one. They are turning the Encyclopedia into a Newspaper! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:Coatrack articles and not least WP:BLP1E.--Charkhin (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's about a movement, not a single person. Perhaps move from "Girl" to "Girls". Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Here is wikipedia, not an anarchy or forum for free speech. Girl of enghelab street is just the Hashtag and also not the social movement that has occurred in most of cites and streets in Iran. Saff V. (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And will SALT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirraw

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

Company that does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources are clearly press releases, and there is no indication that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill company.

A warning flag is raised by the fact that this article has previously been created by two different socks of prolific sockmaster User:OfficialPankajPatidar, who has been engaging in undisclosed paid editing. bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Hagennos (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. MER-C 11:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirraw is not a "run of the mill" company - it is one of the biggest online retailers in the world's fastest growing online retail market (india) and to this day is a bootstrapped company (another "novel" aspect about Mirraw - to have raised funding would have made them "run of the mill"). The sources are not all Press Releases either - the first 3 references are absolutely bonafide from some of India's biggest media companies, and the last one, though not from a "media" source (but still not a press release) - it is a website that is run by Franchise owners association of India and they feature their artices about promising companies. Its not a news-media socurce in the traditional sense but it is no press release either. user:Subho2017 —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references are (slightly) rewritten press releases, also known as churnalism. The other two are straight press releases with no attempt made to make them look like real articles. It is really rather unmistakeable. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait - I have found other authentic articles to replace the last 2. Thanks for teaching me what "churnalism" is - but regardless the first two are from reputed sources, at least very reputed in India user:Subho2017

I think when Wikipedia alleges that some entity is not famous, they probably mean "not globally famous". But I hope they realize, that India is a highly populous country and one of the fasting growing economies in the world. It is entirely possible for an Indian company to have more users (all within India) than some "international" app or website. It s entirely possible for some Indian book or film to sell more copies/views than some book/film from France or Italy. Please note that most of the references for this article are from very reputable sources - again sources that may not be well known in the outside world but which most likely have more viewership in India than The Guardian of the UK or La Figaro of France. Also being that India is one of the fastest growing economies, often "unknown" companies of India are actually poised to become some of the biggest in the world - for eg - each of the "e-tailers" of India (fastest growing ecommerce market, now that China has topped out), though not well known to the outside world, are actually on their way to becoming among the biggest in the world. Same with Mirraw - it does not have to be popular outside India.

Wikipedia has to realize that the bulk of their viewership now comes from emerging economies like India, rather than a UK or Australia - and the trend will keep growing for decades to come. user:Subho2017 —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you are right about the need to cater to a global readership, and Wikipedia policy agrees with you about that, there are a couple of misunderstandings in the post above.

First, Wikipedia does not care about an entity being famous. "Famous" is never a criterion for inclusion, and nor is "popular" - "notable" is the criterion, and that is something rather different. Especially since Wikipedia has a particular definition of notability. Most famous people and things are probably notable, but many notable people and things are very far from being famous. The criteria a company needs to meet are presented here and here.
Second, it is indeed quite possible to be locally or regionally notable. Flipkart and Myntra cater to the Indian market only and most people outside India have never heard of them, but they are very obviously notable. So that would also not be a valid reason to remove an article, and it is not the issue here.
Third, as has already been explained, sources have to be independent. A press release is never going to be an indication of notability even if it is published in The Hindu or The Times or The Washington Post or any other of the world's major publications. A feature article in a major national newspaper is going to carry more weight than a feature article in a small local newspaper, but that is not the concern in this case. Have a look at WP:SPIP which says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability" and goes on to explain why that is not the case.

One press release source has been removed from the article but it was replaced with another one, so there are still no independent sources in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.codes (disambiguation)

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

I can't see how this would be useful. None of the items listed are named ".codes". feminist (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: They are all codes of some sort, what is the deletion rationale? Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: The .codes is a TLD designation, so it would be the prerogative of the domain name holder. A complete listing of .codes websites can be generated in any Internet statistics site, Googled or secured via any search engine. The usage of the TLD is not limited to one field or science, the major theme is codes and coding. Habatchii (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Code (disambiguation), though a deletion would be reasonable as well. There's nothing there which is ".codes", just a few arbitrary terms with the word "Code" in them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, seems a good idea, certainly better than the current situation. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any editor intentionally reference an external link on a Disambiguation page?

Habatchii (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless disambig page. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marci Segal

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

Can't locate any substantive sources about her that would show that she passes WP:GNG. Checked Google, GBooks, GNews, GScholar, Highbeam, and JSTOR.

I'm pretty sure she doesn't pass any of the WP:NPROF criteria either although I fully admit it is not my strong suit. I will withdraw if there's a reasonable indication she passes NPROF. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article from the earlier days of WP that no longer satisfies existence requirements and has likely survived this long because of its obscurity (ORPHAN, low page views). It's basically a CV, having no RS. Awards are obscure. Book holdings are very low, for example WorldCat shows that Quick Guide is held by 4 and Creativity and Personality Type by 25 institutions. Notability claims, e.g. that she is recognized for contributions to the fields of creativity and psychology, and for founding World Creativity and Innovation Day, April 21 seem to be unsubstantiated PUFF. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricola44's leg work. No claim for notability, aside from perhaps founding World Creativity and Innovation Week, which itself doesn't appear to be on the wiki. This is a CV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:PROF and good research from XOR'easter ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jensen (economist)

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

No evidence of notability, and no evidence that WP:ACADEMIC is met. All references in the article are works by the subject himself, and there doesn't seem to be much secondary independent coverage in reliable sources. Looks like an ordinary successful academic, but not one who has had a huge impact in his field. — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't generally do academics, but I note that the paper on the cell phones in Kerala is hugely cited: GScholar shows over 1400 refs, and I dodn't have trouble finding it in books. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He holds a named chair, the David B. Ford professorship. Google Scholar gives just over 5,000 citations overall and an h-index of 21 [6], which is respectable but not mind-blowing. A news search (filtering on "economics" and "Wharton" to remove false positives) finds coverage of his work by PBS [7], NPR [8] and The Economist [9]. All this adds up to passing WP:PROF#C5, probably WP:PROF#C1 and arguably WP:PROF#C7/WP:GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also the New York Times (from when Jensen was at UCLA) [10]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair at a top business school makes WP:PROF clear and the sources found by XOR'easter provide adequate material for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep as a named chair: "David B. Ford Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania". Notable in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair at Wharton is obvious PROF pass. Agricola44 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Agricola and others. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Abbott (author)

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

Not a notable author, this subject won a local (not national award). A nomination for a Pulitzer in the book category is not a win. Notability is not inherited. Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local prizes are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Antonioatrylia; nominations do no meet the requirements of WP:NAUTHOR - a search finds only a handful of incidental references Chetsford (talk) 16:53, 27 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 Spinnin' Records. Sandstein 07:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinnin' Premium

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Lack of significant coverage. — Za wl 10:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spinnin' Records, as nominator. — Za wl 10:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - no significant enough coverage to merit separate article. -- Begoon 10:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Label is notable enough to be provided own Wikipedia page, article can be changed from stub status to full article with the adding of discography section. I've seen recent revision revertions for the discography section which are due to primary references being used (Official website, Discogs), with some searching I managed to find a reliable catalogue (Beatport) which can be used for that section. (Link: https://www.beatport.com/label/spinnin-premium/53031) WP:NPOV ANode (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all references are effectively press releases for the subject's initial release. Note all contain the same quote from the subject's founder. Nothing shows that the subject has received any significant independent coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't see how the topic differs from Spinnin' Records. Are there different artists signed? Is its management independent of the parent company? If the music different from Spinnin' in genre or otherwise? The answer seems to be "no" for all of these, so I think having separate articles is a dis-service to readers as confusing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:28, 28 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 Bbb23, CSD A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tencteri and Usipetes

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

Neither an article nor a redirect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 17:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-a3}}. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:07, 27 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. I've copied the content over to an equally empty draft at Draft:Israr Atal, but perhaps it will get used there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israr Atal

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

This page was incorrectly marked CSD A7 by @Ma'az:. Xe should have brought this up to AfD instead of marking it for speedy. I think the subject fails to meet notability, while he has been namechecked in various Pakistani dailies but i don't see a single in-depth coverage. The article claims "He is a famous pashto poet and Lyricist." which I could not verify via RS. one source indicates the subject is " a professor of Pashto literature at the Government College Peshawar. " Saqib (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7, A11, G11. M A A Z T A L K 13:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merely stating that he is famous doesn't make him notable, and the references don't establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 28 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 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Aziz (Pakistani official)

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Doesn't pass sufficient notability. M A A Z T A L K 21:05, 31 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 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2013

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

The overall pageant may be of some notability, but this does not extend to the individual years. (I'm listing this one, but there are others) DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all annual articles. Not independently notable & wp:promo. @DGG: -- I'm not sure if your nominating statement refers to all annual articles or not. If yes, you may want to add them to this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would add the other ones if there's a chance none of them are independently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Shouche

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO. All references are Primary and associated with the organization that the individual works for. Hagennos (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this person meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), he is a scientist at a major national research institute and has as significant number of well cited works (see google scholar and this). Specifically he works for the National Centre for Cell Science at Savitribai Phule Pune University. All this is referenced in reliable sources, and these sources do not need to be independent because of the policy to prevent unfair discrimination against academics. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with a GS h-index of 42. I made a first attempt at cleaning the page up and making it read less like an advertisement. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROOF. The current version of the article, post-cleanup, is not promotional; suitable as a start-class article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Large citation base. Agricola44 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 31 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 07:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lowly Palace

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

Non-Notable record label. References point to very specific non-notable EDM blogs. Why does it have a YouTube infobox? Is it a YouTube label? Possible redirect to Trap Nation, depending on whether it's a subsidiary or related product. No notable artists with any notable charting hits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was created by blocked user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - independent producer on YouTube, fails WP:N ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Not-So-Great Moments in Sports

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

Article on a 1984 HBO special is sourced to YouTube and IMDB. BEFORE search finds no other RS sources. Chetsford (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Tim McCarver which mentions the video. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that redirecting The Not-So-Great Moments in Sports to an article about a living person without explanation is a good idea. It is only mentioned briefly in reference to something he said, which is not sourced:

On July 4, 1976, McCarver hit what is known as a "Grand Slam Single" when, after hitting a grand slam, he passed his teammate Garry Maddox on the basepath. While hosting the HBO special The Not-so-Great Moments in Sports, McCarver later claimed to have said to the umpire, "I didn't pass him, he lapped me." Asked how Maddox could have done that, McCarver replied, "Sheer speed." The event was commemorated in the book The Baseball Hall of Shame 3 as "Tim McCarver's Grand Sob." (no ref)

Otherwise, I would say it's not notable and should be deleted. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I get one ref in a book, everything else is ads about it. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 27 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 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Sams

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

David Sams has recently been in the news extensively for the Google Assistant Jesus Christ incident [11], however, outside of that (which would be BLP1E) doesn't seem to have a footprint in RS. The article makes a number of extraordinary claims like he's personally won 9 Emmy Awards (I'm assuming the implication is national, not local, Emmys), helped launch Oprah Winfrey, and sold $125 million in direct TV systems, however, I am unable to find RS to support any of these claims after searching Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR. At present, the article is sourced to two YouTube videos and David Sams' personal website. The article was previously deleted via AfD but later recreated. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Sams is probably very good at self promotion and has some despicable political ideas, he clearly has a history as a TV producer. One of his shows is named in WP:TVSHOW as an example of a show suitable enough to be named as content carried by local TV stations. He is obviously much higher up the food chain. He has done what good producers do, get his name attached to a lot of successful projects. He has managed to get his position as creator of Oprah's talk show and 9 Emmy awards mentioned in a lot of press, including reliable sources like the LA Times. Clearly there are a lot of sources talking about a lot of different stages of his career at varying points in time. Somehow the NOM's google search didn't seem to find the ones I have already added to the article. If nothing else he has achieved WP:GNG. And further, if his name is in the news currently (as stated by the NOM), it would be irresponsible of wikipedia to delete his article with his lengthy history specifically at the time people will be searching to find out who this guy is no matter how we feel about his religious or political activities. Trackinfo (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Somehow the NOM's google search didn't seem to find the ones I have already added to the article." While I appreciate your effort in adding press releases [12], Blogspot posts [13], Wordpress.com blog posts [14], and something called constantinereport.com [15] to the Sams BLP, just to be clear, David Sams did not create the Oprah Winfrey Show or win nine Emmy Awards.

The only WP:RS that mentions any involvement by Sams in Oprah in any context at all is this one LA Times candidate profile [16] when he was one of 135 candidates running in the California gubernatorial recall election and it says he was "involved in launching" Oprah as a syndication staffer at King World Television. This is the careful wording a publicist uses in crafting a biography for his client; the cameraman of the pilot episode was also "involved in launching" Oprah.
I've just checked the Emmys database [17] and they return no results showing Sams winning "9 Emmy Awards" (or even one Emmy Award).

"if his name is in the news currently (as stated by the NOM), it would be irresponsible of wikipedia to delete his article" - see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E

Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sams has sources talking about his history going back to the 1980's. Clearly this is not a case where WP:BLP1E applies. I am specifically questioning the timing of this AfD to correspond with his appearance in the current news, which you as the NOM brought up. The sources I added did not even address whatever is putting him in the current news. Trackinfo (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other points, I agree, he or his publicist (possibly the same person) have done an effective job of placing his claims of 9 Emmy awards into various media, including the LA Times and other legitimate newspapers. I suspect, in his role with the distribution company for Oprah, Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune, he has assumed the awards for those shows to be his own. Clearly he was high up the food chain at King World. I'm adding a source that defines his title at the company. If you think the multiple sources repeating the claims posted by his publicist are still inadequate, I would not contest removing of the awards or better, refining of the wording to say "he claims." Independent of that, he did co-produce and was on camera host of RollerGames, also sourced. And his current involvements in religious broadcasting that have evolved over the last two decades. There are a lot of things this guy has done over a long career, a lot of it behind the scenes and more difficult to articulate if you aren't sitting in those offices while decisions are being made. Was he important to the decisions that made these things happen, or was he just occupying a seat at the table? But he was there. He keeps getting asked to be there. The main point is you are improperly using the AfD process to try to delete the entire article, rather than using your skills as an editor to place proper words into the article to more accurately describe what is known about this subject.Trackinfo (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're in dangerous territory here. This guy obviously has a relationship with Oprah, among others. Removing him from here would be as bad a Google removing Jesus from Google Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterhit (talk • contribs)

Blogspot posts, press releases, YouTube videos, and constantinereport.com aren't real sources, though. Especially for a BLP. Chetsford (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times, LA Times (multiple mentions in different decades), Chico News & Review are legitimate newspapers, The Washington Times is a biased conservative newspaper. There are multiple trade publications in the sources. The other sources just supplement. I added an LA Times to supplement what a previous user had added from youtube. I freely admit there is garbage in the article. Feel free to edit. You have no case for removal. Trackinfo (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times article you added is a 4,663 word article that mentions David Sams once in a short quote. The others are similarly incidental. It seems the only substantive references are to the non-RS sources you've added like Blogspot, Wordpress, constantinereport.com, etc. If we remove those we have no biographical detail on Sams other than the fact he is a living human. Chetsford (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief. His name might be mentioned once, in the middle of a paragraph long quote that sets up his participation in the negotiations on Oprah and several paragraphs about how innovative that was. And you are counting words? Trackinfo (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that sets up his participation in the negotiations" - But it doesn't really, does it? [18] Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user says delete to everything. Please ignore. Trackinfo (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a seasoned contributor to Wikipedia with an 87% match rate on AfDs. Please treat other editors in this discussion with civility. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JPL has such a bad track record that he has been banned from creating AfDs. That's one of my sources for a legitimate accusation. Since he can't create AfDs, he is a serial deletionist. As for your statement about an 87% match rate, I have made multiple requests for your source on such a declaration. You have refused. So that declaration is unfounded. Trackinfo (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can find anyone's AFD match rate using Wikimedia Toolforge. If you have other questions about tools available for Wikipedia editing I would encourage you to bring them up at the WP:Teahouse. If you have other accusations to make against editors I would encourage you to bring them up at ANI. Neither of these are appropriate avenues of discussion for this AfD. I appreciate your help in keeping this AfD as on-topic and un-dramatic as possible. Thanks, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, I'm commenting here since Chetsford clearly doesn't want you on their talk page regarding this issue. You can see any user's AFD statistics at https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ Primefac (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All questions posed here have been reviewed, checked, and referenced. The article has been updated and sources cited throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterhit (talk • contribs) — Misterhit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Misterhit. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, I saw your post on AIV; no block seems to have followed but I didn't check to see if an admin had commented. I would not act on this: the editor just keeps on digging their own hole, and when this AfD closes as delete, which I am sure it will, it will be over, no doubt. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A textbook example of puffery, using youtube as a source, and press releases as sources, and articles which do not even mention the person as sources. A huge NYT article on King World mentions Sams once - as a former employee. Sorry - the person is not individually notable, and the puffery used is distasteful. Collect (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look further at the source for RollerGames? That was his creation, with Mike Miller, and he was on camera host. In addition, he certainly had some association with Oprah and other King World products, he was quoted in the NYT about that. The puffery can get edited, removing the entire subject is not appropriate. Trackinfo (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- and all the other puffery which has been restored in its entirety by an editor with few if any outside edits. I am iterating the Delete vote, and note the use of youtube and other absolutely unusable sources place back into the BLP. Collect (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has been quoted in numerous places (press releases, YouTube videos, blogspot posts, etc.) declaring he is responsible for launching Oprah. What we don't have is any WP:INDEPENDENT source affirming this, nor is there any evidence of Oprah herself acknowledging she even knows who he is. Chetsford (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming this new editor Misterhit to be Sams himself. WP:COI aside, he knows where the bodies are buried. He has provided the youtube video (hosted on David Sams' account) of himself, on camera, representing King World, hawking Oprah's then untested show in 1986. Unless you want to contend that he made himself look 30 years younger in order to fake that video to keep his article on wikipedia, that gives pretty clear evidence of his association to the national distribution of that show, backing up all the other articles where he is talked about having been involved with the show. So the New York Times quoting him about his past association with selling the Oprah show is not a fake or them succumbing to a publicity shill job. Two other videos show him, on camera, selling (credited as Executive Producer) and hosting RollerGames again backing up the LA Times article giving him similar credit in their write up about the series. Or do you think they too were deceived in 1989? Broadcasting and Cable is an industry publication, another reliable source, talking about his lawsuit against Verisign in 2003. I also restored the Chico News & Review sourcing to his "Economic terrorism" quote from his 2003 run for governor. WP:BLP1E? Seriously? So trying to dissect his claim of 9 Emmys, Oprah won for talk show host in 1987, 1991-5, her show won 1987-9 1991-2, 1994-7, Alex Trebek won game show host for Jeopardy in 1989-90, Pat Sajak won the same in 1993 and 98, Jeopardy won as game show six times 1990-5. Of those, how deep would the credits show for the VP of the distribution company? The Oprah Winfrey Show ultimately won 46 Emmys, the most of any show. Did he get or assume a pseudo producer credit to take credit for any of those during the extended tenure following his sales efforts to bring the show into national distribution? Grandiose claims? We have already established he is a salesman. See Donald Trump. Most of these sources were already in the article through its many evolutions over the last few days. So the delete votes below obviously failed to read, or to trust, notable major daily news sources. I will never understand your zealous blindness in order to delete content, but in every AfD we always seem to line up an echo chamber of lemmings. Trackinfo (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at my AfD history then. I am as far from a "lemming" as you might desire. The problem is that many people have created their own BLPs - and the use of SPS material and the like is usually a dead giveaway. Wikipedia policy requires that such be deleted, alas. This is not the voice of a "lemming" as you will find out from my stats. Collect (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, would you mind not calling other editors in this discussion names like "lemmings"? It helps to keep the discussion focused. Thanks very much. Chetsford (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer David Sams is appealing to his Facebook followers over his Wikipedia page "being hacked" [sic] [19], which I believe may be a reference to this AfD. This most likely won't have a substantial impact on this AfD as it appears he has very few Facebook followers (~700), however, please note any SPAs or sleeper accounts. Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on GNG Darkness Shines (talk)▪
Delete Except for Google Jesus thing, no notable mention in reliable sources. Fails on GNG. Delete per BLP1E LK (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The usual "throw all the possible cites at the wall and see if enough stick" approach to article retention is evident. Many of the cites do not say what they are cited for saying, the cites that are significantly about this subject are not independent, and the cites that are independent are not significant. There's no sign of independent, significant sources in general searches, either. No way to pass WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, fails GNG BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable person, Fails GNG and every other policy on here!. –Davey2010^Talk 04:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Scattered passing mentions in the sources are not enough to create notability:WP:INDEPTH. Neutrality^talk 04:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a heavily promotional and poorly referenced BLP filled with dubious assertions. This person is not notable. For what it is worth, I happen to have a copy of Kitty Kelley's 579 page biography of Oprah Winfrey in my lap, and it doesn't mention Sams at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His reported involvement with notable TV shows and other events are not supported by RS.Martinlc (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer 2 Misterhit has announced it is the agent or legal counsel for David Sams [20] and has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing and legal threats [21]. Chetsford (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PROMO page built on unreliable and / or WP:SPIP sources. Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Meyer

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

Deleted in accordance with WP:A7 many years ago, more recently deleted via WP:PROD. I just restored it due to a request at WP:REFUND, but I'd like a community decision on whether it's a keeper. The article is poorly sourced at the moment. As a co-founder of Jash he might be notable, as are some of the other individuals associated with Jash, but as we all know, notability is not inherited. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NOTINHEIRIT is not policy. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:NOTINHERITED is an explanatory supplement to policy (see the box at the top of the page), and as such, carries the weight of policy. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I think not inherited is a valid argument, but putting that aside, I really don't see any significant coverage of him anywhere, just a quote here and there.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Nadeem

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

Tamgha-e-Imtiaz fouth in order, not of real importance. Nothing in the coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- National head of a Catholic order and involvement with Interfaith council might just push him into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hagiography, perhaps appropriate to the topic, but this man has not yet been sainted. Any real indication of notability is difficult to discern beneath the pious gloss. Sandstein 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provincials are typically not considered notable, unlike bishops. Any coverage he would have received would be routine for his position, and since we don’t have a history of keeping provincials, I’m inclinded to support deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takht-e-Sulaiman

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

Based on original research and one fake citation. Xzinger (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sulaiman Mountains, where the information appears to be referenced. PriceDL (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A famous peak and so clearly notable. If there are problems with the sourcing of specific parts of the text, then they can be removed. I have no objections to redirecting for the time being until more content is added. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough notability there at least for a stub. More sources [22][23]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with NadirAli نادر علی's reasoning above. The article can be improved, if given a chance.Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as its notable. M A A Z T A L K 17:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added references ^{see diff} and it is not an OR now. samee ^talk 21:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Bengali Of All Time

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

Questionable as an encyclopedic article. The second source mentions "He said they had nothing to do with the survey except compiling the opinion sent through e-mail and post." An opinion poll conducted by a local branch of a British media outlet in an area that did not have much internet penetration in 2004. The first source says 12 out of 250 million people were listeners back then, with the number of people polled being questionable. This at best is POV of a subset in a larger group of people. Moreover, it's nowhere as notable or popular as Time 100 or Time Person of the Year. MT Train^Discuss 13:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 13:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a single reference to a reliable source The Hindu. Fails WP:NOTESAL Hagennos (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The other source, The Daily Star, is also reliable. I have added more sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to The Hindu, The Daily Star, and BSS, academic Reese Jones wrote about the poll at length in a peer reviewed article in journal National Identities (a later version of his article became a chapter in a book published by academic press Routledge).

Any flaws in the poll, such as those put forward by the nom, should be discussed in the article if reliable sources cover them; they do not make the poll an inappropriate topic for an encyclopedia. It may not be "as notable" or popular as Time 100 or Time Person of the Year, but the poll meets WP:GNG. Not sure if the same can be said about some other members of Category:Greatest Nationals, such as Belg der Belgen or Velikite Balgari, both of which are unsourced, but both were nominated for deletion and kept.

If a radio countdown poll is considered a major work, the title should be italicized as Greatest Bengali of All Time. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Such list also exist about 100 greatest Americans/British persons of all time. It is a superb list. But the naming system is not correct, move it to 20 greatest Bengalis of all time মাখামাখি (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Greatest Bengali of All Time is the English name of the poll as derived from reliable sources. The title 20 greatest Bengalis of all time would be inappropriate because it is a non-neutral descriptive title that implies that the list is Wikipedia's opinion. See WP:TITLE. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale for deletion seems very Americo-centric. (i.e. nowhere as notable or popular as Time 100 or Time Person of the Year.) So it's 2004 and the BBC covers a survey involving many Bangladeshis across the country and gives it coverage. I'd say it meets WP:GNG. Agree that a name change would be inappropriate at this time. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list has received significant coverage in RS to pass GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- deleting the article while 100 Greatest Britons exists unmolested would be an example of systemic bias. In any case, not indiscriminate and all entries have articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory integration therapy

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

This may be a notable topic, but as the tags at the top - unaddressed since 2014 - indicate, this article has lots of verifiability and neutrality problems, and is in part written like an advertisement, down to the use of the term "Ayres Sensory Integration®" in parts. Until this is evaluated and totally rewritten by an expert, perhaps it is better covered more succinctly at Anna Jean Ayres. Sandstein 15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's bullsh*t, but it is notable bullsh*t. I have made a few edits to reflect that fact. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep an eye on the related articles Sensory Integration Dysfunction, Sensory processing disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation and Anna Jean Ayres. There's a lot of dubious scientific claims in all these articles. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the subject itself seems notable. A quick google reveals it's treated as an established therapy by information for patients (webMD, NHS website), professional organizations; it's covered in journals and taught in university courses. Instead of deleting the article, maybe the right approach is to cut overly detailed and overly positive sections and start over from a reduced core. Cyrej (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, it's frightful, somewhat promotional (I've cut some of the worst of it), dreadfully written, and (shh!) doesn't seem to work despite vigorous but largely unscientific attempts to demonstrate that it has any kind of benefit. It thus seems very close to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, not to mention WP:ADV and WP:COI if we're into policy acronyms. However, this flaky stuff does exist out there in the world, including in numerous NHS trusts (local health bodies in the UK), which may have accepted it more or less uncritically. I think we should deal with it sceptically, citing reliable sources, as we do with topics like Astrology. The current article ~~needs to be~~has been extensively ~~rewritten~~cut down, so we ~~have the choice of WP:TNT (delete, start over) or~~might as well keep~~ing~~ it ~~and reroofing the house from the inside~~. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in decent WP:MEDRS so passes WP:GNG - woo but notable woo. I've cut a load of crappy content. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn good work. Have you looked at the other articles named by Famousdog above? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 27 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) 02:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Fuel

AfDs for this article:

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

There is very little substantial coverage of this product that I'm finding on Google -- mostly Knowyourmeme and that sort of thing. Doesn't appear to be notable beyond some amount of novelty value. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. By searching "Gay Fuel energy drink," I found passing mentions here; here; and, an even more passing mention, when searching "Gay Fuel" in gScholar, here. I couldn't find, in a current search using the term "Gay Fuel", articles cited in the first AFD, including [http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25409/ this] and this, which still come up when launching the old links in AFD No.1. Even so, the sum and breadth of the coverage is not enough to meet notability requirements in general (WP:GNG). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of substantial coverage. The market for such a drink was small and most new products fail. The odds for this failed product succeeding was stacked against it from the beginning.Knox490 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried to source this including digging in the history for lost sources that might have made editors !vote keep in the past. I don't see we have significant coverage to warrant inclusion under GNG, cf. assessment below. Sam Sailor 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Here Publishing (June 2004). Out. Here Publishing. pp. 189–.				✘ No
Mark Coggins (30 September 2010). Runoff. Philodox Press. pp. 210–. ISBN 978-0-9829484-4-6. Chris had been participating in a focus group put together by manufacturers targeting products for the trendy, well-to-do gay demographic. The last one I remembered was a horrible concoction called "Gay Fuel." I didn't have the courage to ask what the tea was named.				✘ No
Kevin Lane Keller (2008). Best Practice Cases in Branding: Lessons from the World's Strongest Brands. Pearson/Prentice-Hall. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-13-188865-4. Other entrants in the energy drink category included musician Lil Jon's Crunk brand, Bong Water, Pimp Juice, Shark, and Gay Fuel.				✘ No
Mark Coggins (2006). Candy from Strangers. Philodox Press. ISBN 978-0-9829484-3-9.			Short story in an anthology, simply mentions the product a few times.	✘ No
"Homosexuals fired up over 'Gay Fuel'". WorldNetDaily. 2004-07-05. Retrieved 28 January 2018.		? Fringy; not by-lined	Some detail	? Unknown
"Gay Fuel stiffed Gay Days, judge rules (14655)". The Advocate. 22 December 2004. Retrieved 28 January 2018. `{{cite web}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help)			Not much talk about the product per se	✘ No
Klein, Sarah (May 18, 2005). "Gay Bull and Monster Pimps". Detroit Metro Times. Retrieved January 28, 2018.				✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20051229003230/http://www.gaysports.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=54&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=417&snippetset=yes	Sounds like a press release to me			✘ No
"Apply for a Trademark. Search a Trademark". trademarkia.com. Retrieved 28 January 2018.			Merely a trademark db	✘ No
"13 sorters läsk som du garanterat aldrig skulle vilja dricka" [13 kinds of soda that you guaranteed would never like to drink] (in Swedish). Expressen. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Hitta din målgrupp och ge järnet! Nåja… Den här drycken lanserades i Florida i USA mot en gaypublik. Den är ungefär som red bull, men drycken är rosa. [Find your target audience and give them a hard on! Well ... This drink was launched in Florida in the US targeted towards a gay audience. It's like Red Bull, but the drink is pink.] `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help)			Trivial mention, see quote	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the discussion again, it seems to fall into more of a no consensus to delete area rather than "keep," even after discounting the participants who voiced arguments that should be avoided in AfDs. Even still, a no-census results in keeping the page. Killiondude (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's College, Anuradhapura

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

Delete: non-notable, defunct college in Sri Lanka. Google search and alumni search bring nil. Quis separabit? 01:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. It is not a defunct school - an easy search quickly establishes that. References and notable alumni added. Dan arndt (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if it was defunct, why would that be relevant? Wikipedia is not a repository of current affairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus and for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, obviously you couldn't be bothered to read my other reasons! Apparently in your view all opinions that a secondary school is notable should be discounted. Because. you. are. right! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me keep it short... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Bye. The Banner talk 19:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...N, expect a counter-essay to pop up soon:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Fails GNG. Nothing resemblant to significant covg. in sources.Winged Blades^Godric 16:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further sources have been provided to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..did you miss significant coverage?! And WP ain't wiki-source either!Winged Blades^Godric 11:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I’m not part of your ongoing personal dispute with Necrothesp, so you are going to have to explain your cryptic comments above, preferably in a civil manner. Dan arndt (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. And, please don't dump every GHit retrieved by the school into the article.We aren't into indiscriminately collecting sources about the subject.

And, what led you to infer that I’m a part of an ongoing personal dispute with Necrothesp? Please avoid making such accusations, with ill-considered words.Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From an outsiders point of view based on some of the earlier comments it appeared to me that you may have had some sort of history on these issues, my apologies if I misinterpreted that. In respect to your comments the last time I checked national newspapers, government websites and independently published books were all generally considered reliable sources. The sources that I have provided specifically relate to individual comments provided in the article and are not indiscriminate GHits. Dan arndt (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Anyways, I will re-emphasise the part. word:--significant.If you wish, I can provide an analysis of the sources and their failing GNG.Just to note, alumni biographies noting their school in the most-trivial manner and directory-mentions do not lead to an increase in the notability-quotient of the subject.Winged Blades^Godric 14:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was really in response to the first editors comments that “Google search and alumni search bring nil“, so I was proving that statement was false - nothing more. The reason that I feel the school is notable is because it is over 120years old. It is essentially a catholic school in a very historical and traditional Buddhist city. Frankly it’s really surprising that it survived the national Sinhalese movement in the late 1960s. Dan arndt (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. just need to improve.Raith77 (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a leading school in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. SWR2.9 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable school in Sri Lanka--L Manju (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 120 year history with online reliable sources, probable offline as well Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Parish School

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

Delete: as non-notable school. Google search uncovered nothing notable nor any notable alumni. On a personal note, this seems to be the least notable school I have come across on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 01:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:40, 27 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contently

AfDs for this article:

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

Possibly notable, but this is fundamentally an advertisement, and the promotional tone is so pervasive that it does not seem fixable. NOT ADVOCACY is one of our basic principles--we shouldn't concern ourselves whether or not the advertisement is of a potentially notable firm or product. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional 'cruft on a company that's not yet achieved anything of note. Sources are WP:SPIP / fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a free means of promoting the company's "Press" and "Leadership". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. MER-C 12:07, 28 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 University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Santaga Stadium

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

No sources, school division status does not necessarily confer notability, no continuing coverage Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 00:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no external sources show this is of any importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/redirect: Another page related to this university was redirected to the main page, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, but there are no incoming links of note that I feel would justify leaving the page up as a redirect. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 02:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Bay Phoenix, where the stadium is mentioned. Smartyllama (talk) 14:21, 27 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.