Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 July 18 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$UICIDEBOY$[edit]

$UICIDEBOY$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches have not found a substantial amount of sources, only a few and they are not subsequently substantial enough to suggest a convincingly notable article. Honestly, I would've and was in fact going to PROD, but see the 2 past deletions which therefore suggest a Salting may be needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this Page because I have found many notable sources about the group. As Stated in the article a big part of there current fame is underground. Most of my sources were from YouTube, Twitter, And SoundCloud. I suggest you watch Videos on YouTube about $UICIDEBOY$, or maybe visit there website. I feel this is a group worthy of a Wikipedia page, and I worked hard on creating it, and It would really hurt if it just got tossed with the other deleted articles. Thank You EvanDanielCollett talk 4:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete YouTube, Twitter and Soundcloud are most definitely not independent reliable sources to show how this group is notable. The group hasn't charted, and hasn't been covered in such a way to be seen as notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in the past[edit]

List of films set in the past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Indiscriminate list - could have included any historic movie. Also, how far are you going to go? Star Wars movies? Despite the sci-fi trappings, the films are set "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". Lord of the Rings? Tolkien made it clear in his writings that the books are set in the past of the real world. (This would be better handled by categorization.)

Initially, I wanted to include List of films set in the future in the nomination; instead, I have created a separate nomination for the other list. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 'Set in the past' is insufficiently specific to have value as a list. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list can be divided into category-sections and explained in each of them. New information such as the genre or theme of the films may also be included. I don't think deleting it is a clever idea. The same applies to List of films set in the future. - Alumnum (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think Tolkien "made it clear" that the Middle-earth was a period of the real world. He was actually vague about this and called it a possible "different period of imagination" from what I can recall. - Alumnum (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And any contemporary film which is set in the present day will, by the time of its release, be set in the "past" - Despite the description I created states that only films unambiguously set in the past must be included, and films depicting our contemporary reality with no setting date shown can well be called present films, your observation remembered me that some films may have a difference of one or more years between its making and release, which sometimes interfere in the setting year if it is stated on-screen, giving the film a past setting according to the description. Notwithstanding, I don't think a slight rewording won't solve this problem. - Alumnum (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes the existing description does cover it. That's fine. My bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A list of films set in the future is not as bad as this list, since a minority of films are set in the future, and the future setting is generally relevant to the plot. Would still only be a fairly weak keep though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either specify better criteria for inclusion in this highly arbitrary category (used generically, not a Wiki 'category') or Delete. E.g. a film set only 10 years before the movie release would need to be about some fairly significant event (i.e. not 'Harry Potter') to justify inclusion. (That is, the film being set in the past should have some relevance to the plot beyond 'the book it's based on was written a few years ago'.) Otherwise, the majority of all films ever produced—only a minority of films are set in the future—would 'qualify' for this list.---Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- vague and arbitrary inclusion criteria which invites OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Determining that 1066 < 2016 is not OR, inclusion criteria are not vague, and this allows sorting and grouping of films set in various time periods in a way that a bare category will not. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 21:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I find the inclusion criteria to be indeterminate, and the list to be, unfortunately, not really that justifiable or necessary. The list regarding films set in the future, however, I find agreeable due to its clearer rules. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The inclusion criteria need refining. I immediately think of Back to the Future which was set in its present (1985 - now our past) and its past (1955), and its future (2015 - now our past). Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not look to be an appropriate topic for a list. The inclusion criteria is completely unclear, unless we presume the broad, literal interpretation, which would not be a workable scope. If a film is released in January 2016, and is set in 2015, would it be included? Every movie with a flashback? Movies primarily set in the past, but told through a narrator in the present? Only the distant past? Nearly all documentaries? Only films that are set in the past as a genre convention? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT and lacks any secondary sources to make it the least bit worthy of an article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An uncountable number of films are set in the past. I might support a series of lists with concrete dates (e.g. List of films set in the 17th century) and a master "Lists of films set in the past" page, but this is clearly not that. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted by multiple commenters above, the inclusion criteria is far too vague for this to be a useful reference, and it's also woefully incomplete. List of historical period drama films already exists and is already much more detailed and complete than this page, despite having a cleaner and narrower focus. I couldn't find an equivalent "list of historical period comedy films", but it seems like effort would be better spent there in creating that page, than duplicating effort on a page that already exists and contains a list of films unambiguously "set in the past". Shelbystripes (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic list. In a sense, every film not set in the future is "set in the past" as soon as it is made... No definite parameters for inclusion, a universal set that is so massive as to be useless. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and Carrite. Has no reliable sources and a category would do the trick. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as other editors have noted a category makes more sense here. This seems like more of a fan piece or listicle type entry than some of encyclopedic value. News Team Assemble![talk?] 11:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Megavitamin therapy. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred R. Klenner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fred R. Klenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable purveyor of high-dose vitamin treatments. Sources cited do not include high-quality coverage of him, and another search turned up a variety of alt-med fan sites. It looks like this article has been subject to major POV pushing and edit warring going back to 2007. Article fails notability guidelines per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and do not see where his "high-dose vitamin treatments" is notable, as well. Kierzek (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 21:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This looks more like a case for WP:GNG than WP:PROF, but I can't find enough non-WP:FRINGE sources to pass. It's a bit surprising, actually: I would have thought that being a pioneer of the Vitamin C megadose fringe theory (before Pauling made it famous) and being involved with the Fultz Quads would be enough both for notability and for avoiding WP:BIO1E, but the mainstream sources required by WP:NPOV just don't seem to be there. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - claims are extravagant without sourcing to prove notability. He's nowhere nearly as notable as Gary Null, who has made many similar claims. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep, per number 7 of WP:Academic, he is cited in many notable books that were not cited in the page. Millbug talk 21:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which books? This one looks mainstream enough for me but all the rest that I can actually preview in Google books look to be themselves pushers of fringe theories, and therefore unacceptable here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok pushers of fringe theories, but Astrology has an article, isn't it? And there is a list of astrologers, all of them who have articles because of the only reason that they push a fringe theory; so I think the fringe character may not be considered but the notability of these sources is supported by the impact they have on society. I don't use megadoses of vitamin c nor believe in Taro or Bach flower remedies but all of them have articles and they have the status of encyclopedic matters. Remembering that I recommend a weak keep because I agree partly with the reservation about the article. Millbug talk 22:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least that one book mentions him without any in-depth coverage. Do the others mention him in more detail? Delta13C (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      [1], [2], [3],[4]. I apologize for not making a deeper research. Here I've scanned five pages of Google, bypassing all papers that may be suspicious of being pushed by people engaged with ortomolecular and even foreign language citations, although that facts "de per si" do not necessarily break WP:FRINGE. But if it's so important, if there are reasons that make all sources above worthless, I promiss to withdraw my comment. Millbug talk 17:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1: (Seanet site): Completely fringe science: "I have used Dr. Klenner’s methods on hundreds of patients. He is right. It helps almost every condition and situation, and my failures were due to inadequate amounts." That's almost stereotypical quackery.
2: An "orthomolecular" website. Again fringe science. Starts by comparing themselves to Semmelweiss. Not in-depth coverage.
3: In-depth coverage, but again, complete fringe publication (book released by "Basic Health Publications Inc." pushing megavitamin therapy.) --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Even ignoring the unsigned comment (which agrees with the others) the consensus is uniform. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Count Wladmir Shchwekochov[edit]

Count Wladmir Shchwekochov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No references found for this individual on Google. Of the references listed, one links to a Russian volleyball club and the other to a press release about a poet's works; neither mentions the subject. In addition, the surname "Shchwekochov" has no other appearances on Google and appears to be invalid. All indications point to a long-lived hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any reference to the individual either, including in Google Books. The originating authors only post. Agree: all the markings of a hoax. Engleham (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as there's still nothing at all convincing, sources are not convincing and there's certainly enough questionability, like with usual fabrications, that this can be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First off, note that this name spelling is some sort of funky quasi-Polish transliteration for what is said to have been a Russian nobleman. Vladimir Shchvekochev would be the common American transliteration of the name given above, and Владимир Щвекочев would be the Cyrillic. Use those to search the net and if this turns out to be a keep after all, be sure to change the name of the page to Vladimir Shchvekochev. I will check now myself... Carrite (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am getting absolutely nothing for either variant of the name that I give above, nor did tweaking the last name to Shchvekechev or Shchvekochov generate anything. Since the H-word has been used above, I will tag the piece with a HOAX flag pending its inevitable deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oops, I see a HOAX flag is already up. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Single purpose account creator, Penelopeanddonna with an entire edit history of one edit, to create this piece. Closing administrator might want to lay down a block on that account for vandalism-only activity. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor nobility with relatively tiny land holdings (a forest smaller than the Bronx Zoo or many American summer camps). Bearian (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on searching. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if something is suspect as a hoax we need evidence that it is not to keep it which we lack here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Culinars[edit]

Culinars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about non-notable app, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The only independent ref is a one sentence description on angel.co, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant promotional article. No reliable sources turn up. Geoff | Who, me? 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 17:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Maley[edit]

Ed Maley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject only received passing mentions in sources. He has nothing to show for his own notability as it only notices a 9th Dan rank and teaching other supposedly notable individuals. Notability is not inherited and rank alone is not enough to constitute an article. ALongStay (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

keep black belt magazine, medalist in national championship, taught over 60,000 students, multiple independent articles that are not passing mentions. 2607:FB90:2403:7081:1840:1FB8:4D40:4C54 (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's little doubt that this is a CA puppet, either sock or meat.
  • Keep I don't give much weight to all of the local coverage, but the Black Belt magazine articles are significant coverage to me.Mdtemp (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage in Black Belt is sufficiently significant. Removed some non-RS's. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable martial artist with only passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the multiple articles in Black Belt magazine are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by average height (male)[edit]

List of countries by average height (male) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of WP:IINFO, item 3, Excessive listings of statistics. Just because an external website has this list, doesn't mean it needs to be replicated here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suppose it would break the AfD template if I moved the page to fix the typo in the title? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 00:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floronic Man[edit]

Floronic Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character currently fails to establish notability. The current sources are not used to cite real world information, so they don't really add to the article. The source links show a couple "top X" articles and some speculation about the character possibly being included in a film. None of it really seems important enough to hold an as far as I can tell. TTN (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Floronic Man is admittedly not an iconic supervillain, but there's still coverage. He is often compared and contrasted with Swamp Thing, a superhero who also has plant-based powers. For example: [5] in PopMatters, [6] in Apocalyptic Transformation (Lexington Books), and [7] in Sexual Ideology in the Works of Alan Moore (McFarland & Company). This is just a Google Books snippet view, but [8] in The Supervillain Book (Visible Ink Press) has seems to have significant coverage of him. And this isn't really in-depth, but [9] in Prince of Stories: The Many Worlds of Neil Gaiman (Macmillan Publishers) has some details about Gaiman's plans for the character. Given the Floronic Man's history with Swamp Thing, I think this needs to be somewhere, and it would probably be out-of-place in Swamp Thing's article. Do we have an article on recurring Swamp Thing villains? If so, that's a possible merge target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the article should be expanded with a few citations that relate to the real world, but the character has some decent coverage both in the article and just from a quick Google search. It could use more sources, but it certainly appears to be notable. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While minor, the character's numerous cross-media appearances indicate notability, and this page is a much better place to describe the character than on the numerous pages that link to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abiedo Shanduka[edit]

Abiedo Shanduka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, and WP:ENT. There is one "local interest" piece on him and a couple of passing mentions of doing well in school in the same paper. The subject is a Uni student who has done a bit of stand-up. While this is laudable it is not a credible claim of significance and the coverage is not nearly significant enough to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. At best this is WP:TOOSOON JbhTalk 16:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salimullah Khan[edit]

Salimullah Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not clear. Written like a resume. Most of references are his own blogs or writing. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of statistics and records of Bangladesh Premier League[edit]

List of statistics and records of Bangladesh Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners[edit]

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the last 6 years attempts have been made to clean up this article and give the opportunity for the author to prove the notability of this planning consultancy. Instead the advert-like material has simply been added back. Though I'm tempted to try and speedy delete it as a promotional piece, the company's involvement in major projects over 50 years made it more sensible to AfD it. Planning consultancies play an important role, but not a high profile one in construction projects. I somehow doubt they've been the subject of any major coverage, outside of industry-specific planning journals. Narrow interest journals won't in themselves meet WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Secret ballot. Not a snowball's chance of another outcome. czar 20:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political privacy[edit]

Political privacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article started off as a self-confessed opinionative essay, and despite some of the worst writing being removed that is effectively what it remains. All of the article's content is covered far better in the specific articles on secret ballot, political demonstration, no-fly list and so forth. There is no evidence that lumping all of these things together produces a meaningful concept with any third-party usage. – Smyth\talk 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Secret ballot which is the main topic of the article. The other points are probably covered well in other articles on privacy, the right to privacy, etc.Borock (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Secret ballot per Borock.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is fine, I suppose. This is a classic example of an (essentially) unsourced original essay and is deletable on those grounds. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as nominator. – Smyth\talk 11:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hitchcock[edit]

Bob Hitchcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply a local businessman who owned a local grocery stores chain for which my searches have either simply found some of the listed links, other unhelpful links or, lastly, a passing mention; there's still nothing to suggest his own independent notability and, at that, there's also still nothing suggestive of the company being notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article falls under the guidelines that Wikipedia is not a place to create memorials. He was an owner of local grocery stores and a local politician. Nothing at all close to rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I admit to being a bit limited with searches etc due to many US newspapers being behind paywalls. However, from what I can see and from the tone of the article etc, there doesn't seem to be any grounds for notability here and, as JPL implies, this looks to be more of a memorial than anything else. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Do mind that if you cannot point to a discussion as establishing consensus, then all you have to cite are previous discussions. Saying something is a longstanding practice is not the same as explaining WP:RAILOUTCOMES neatly in your response for a newcomer. I suggest using a text expander. czar 20:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih railway station[edit]

Fatih railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about non notable railway station without any citations or external links. This article is not written in english language as well. NepaliKeto62Talk to me 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete - Article subject fails to meet WP:GEOFEAT, there appears to be no reference to the railway station (specifically that railway station) in cursory searches of google or google books. A machine translation of the article however points me to Marmaray which suggests the railway line isn't (completely) open yet (phase 1 is complete), perhaps WP:TOOSOON may also apply. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Per discussion with Oakshade. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a real rail station. Article wasn't in English and was a mess when AfD started. --Oakshade (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its mere existence doesn't demonstrate notability, unless you can find reliable secondary source references to the railway it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Referring to the article on Marmaray you can note on the route map that many (or most) of the stations don't have articles about themselves, this could be because nobody has bothered to create an article about it or it could be that they lack notability (only time will tell). I'll also point out the lack of a reference for the single sentence in the article, which while not a reasonable reason for deletion in and of itself, without some suggestion of its significance it ought to go. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The community wisely decided years ago that all train stations are notable. This relieves editors of the burden of fleshing out the detailed notability of the tens of thousands of rail stations throughout the world when time and resources should be better spent creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones.--Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point me to this discussion (if you know where it is), I wasn't aware of any such community decision. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an exact discussion, but it's been long-standing practice and consensus that every rail station is considered worthy for inclusion. Sometimes tram stops which can be argued are equivalent to bus stops are merged to line articles, but rail stations are wisely kept so the community can move on to being more productive.--Oakshade (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural redirect. As the article content has been revdel'd, there is nothing to keep, therefore the redirect is pretty much the only option here. (non-admin closure) ansh666 00:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Body Count[edit]

Clinton Body Count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 'body count list' is a hoary conspiracy trope that goes back decades. This one regarding the Clintons has been around since the 1990s. It is a massive BLP violation regarding the Clintons and also defames the memory of many of the people mentioned here. Only sources given are two conspiracy websites. That one former congressman with extremist views on social issues once wrote a letter about this does not give it any legitimacy nor make it any less a conspiracy theory. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whether you agree with it or not, the term is notable, and has generated a lot of comment over the past two decades, as you mention above. BLP issues can be avoided as well by reporting what that the theory is, not speaking of it as an undisputed fact. JoeM (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, under this article title. For other examples, Vince Foster suicide conspiracy theories is but a redirect. We do have an article on the related The Clinton Chronicles. I wouldn't even be willing to keep this as a redirect, because the target article at this point would have to be the main bio article, which I think would be problematic. It may be possible to create a neutral article on anti-Hillary invective and conspiracy theories, but not under this flagrantly POV title, which appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to promulgate the term. User:JoeM's userpage is devoted to parroting anti-Hillary, pro-Trump memes, but it doesn't mean we're going to enable this sort of thing in article space. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and I believe that under its current title, it amounts to an attack page. I've placed a speedy tag on it accordingly. What's decided about that, I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clinton Body Count, where this term is appropriately covered. This title was a redirect to that section from 2012 until it was taken over and expanded today. JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Thank you, John, I should have looked at today's edit history more carefully. Restore redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clinton Body Count. I've struck through my !vote above, as "List of conspiracy theories" would be an acceptable redirect target, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: because I agree that the new version was an attack page, I have boldly restored that redirect. The version under discussion can be seen in the history here. I propose, in addition, that we revision-delete that and the other intervening revisions. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:: there's a similar / related article, Larry Nichols, a guy who is only notable for claiming to be Bill Clinton's "hit man". I've PRODded that article. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wikidemon: fyi your prod appears to have been removed as part of Anthony Appleyard carrying out a hismerge request & page-move. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the notice. As moved / rewritten the article isn't PROD-able in my opinion, though it could use some help with tone, sourcing, filling out citations, etc. But at least it has legitimate sources. I've reworded a BLP violation but problem solved, I think. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clinton Body Count, per JohnCD and Shawn in Montreal.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this article on track to be preemptively destroyed and redirected, while Wikipedia is allowed to continue hosting an article called 'Clinton crazies'? It seems like the standard is that articles about the terms used by Clinton critics cannot stand, while terms used to disparage Clinton critics are encouraged. JoeM (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content is already on Wikipedia, as a section on List of conspiracy theories. However, the argument is that it's not worth its own article: WP:NOPAGE. This page and Clinton crazies stand on their own, completely separate merits and shouldn't be conflated (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). clpo13(talk) 15:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's redirected. But why does a term used by Clinton critics not deserve its own page, while a page about a term used by critics of Clinton critics does deserve its own page? I think there may be a double standard here, since the pro-Hillary users dominate the site. JoeM (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close / Redirect ? - Looks like this AfD was started, then the article was redirected and revdeled, both of which more or less railroad this discussion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor Talk! 12:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Çayırova railway station[edit]

Çayırova railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not notable and and have no any reasons to be in wikipedia. It is very short with only about 30 characters and without citations as well. NepaliKeto62Talk to me 02:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - For the same reasons as Fatih railway station, the "Article subject fails to meet WP:GEOFEAT, there appears to be no reference to the railway station (specifically that railway station) in cursory searches of google or google books. A machine translation of the article however points me to Marmaray which suggests the railway line isn't (completely) open yet (phase 1 is complete), perhaps WP:TOOSOON may also apply." Mr rnddude (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Per discussion with Oakshade at Fatih railway station. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes the article is too short. Bıt it can be expanded. I see no reason to delete it.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned elsewhere, railway stations are notable. Can we just close this already? Smartyllama (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 00:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pankaj Rag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable author and mid level civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 20:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Buzzeo[edit]

Ron Buzzeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a county commissioner. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, so it's WP:GNG or bust -- but the only "references" here are his company's own press releases about itself on a press release distribution platform, which makes them primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can be notable, but the county has to be fairly massive and the profile of the individual high. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a deep respect for individuals willing to undertake the heavy lifting of local government, but I searched and can find can find nothing to support a claim of notability by WP standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While an elected politician, this subject fails to get over the SNG high bar for politicians, which is one of the only scenarios in which GNG is set aside and made more restrictive by long-running precedent at AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 20:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemi Ponifasio[edit]

Lemi Ponifasio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass the notability requirements for living persons WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NBIO. Previously proposed for deletion Ajf773 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Innisfree987: When you removed the PROD, you provided the following edit summary: "Removing prof--coverage in NYT, Guardian, New Zealand Herald, many more". New York Times, Guardian, and NZ Herald aren't in the list of references. If they were, notability would be a lot clearer. Would you mind adding those references for clarity? Schwede66 09:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks for the ping user:Schwede66. Yes, here are some of the sources:
And there really are many more, in many languages. I just got them from Google News (and indeed, had already noted them in the edit history). @Ajf773: I just want to be sure you are aware of WP:BEFORE; to me the instructions to check Google News and the entry's edit history would've both precluded this entry's nomination for AfD in the first place, since they indicate the substantial coverage of this subject. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update to say I've begun work on improving the article, and added five references so far (inline, from reliable sources, etc.) The page still has flaws but I hope these changes make more plainly evident that notability is not among the problems. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NZ Herald article supports that he meets WP:ARTIST. Schwede66 23:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of good quality press coverage to establish notability. Also another Guardian article and one behind a paywall in The Times, 19 Aug, 2014. Good coverage in French press too, like [10].
  • Keep. As the editor who nominated the AFD I did so on the grounds that it didn't meet the notability requirements 'at the time' after a PROD which remained for ten days without before it was de-proded. I also could not find the same sources that Innisfree987 managed to provide and include in the article. Nevertheless the article has been improved to the point I am satisfied that it reaches notability status. Happy for anyone to close the AFD sooner if it is possible. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ajf773, if you like, here are the instructions for withdrawing a nomination: WP:WDAFD. Technically I think this now qualifies for a speedy keep either way but putting the withdrawn note up top spares folks from reading through and possibly spending time re-checking sources before they get to your keep vote. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete; The consensus appears clearly defined. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Chan Hodges[edit]

Shay Chan Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN Billays (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Shay Chan Hodges[reply]

  • Delete as I reviewed this yesterday and also planned to nominate, simply nothing at all actually convincing of substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sources are a little thin but it's Chan Hodges's candidacy that's drawn national attention to this race (Gabbard would be a shoo-in otherwise.) Especially with the NBC News profile, I think there's enough here. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being an as yet unwinning candidate in a party primary race is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article on some other basis prior to her candidacy, then she has to win the election (and I mean the big enchilada in November, not just the primary race) to become notable because of the candidacy itself. And the volume of RS coverage, which is almost entirely local to Hawaii and thus WP:ROUTINE since local coverage of local election races is expected, is not sufficient to give her the rare "notable because the campaign coverage exploded massively beyond the norm" exemption that Christine O'Donnell got. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat's arguments. I did take a look for sources. her book is self-published, online with exclusively local coverage. many of the sources in the sources on the page are in Maui Time Weekly, a very local paper in an island with a population smaller than the average suburb of Detroit, and a paper that she has been a contributor to. And the "national " coverage is meager and consists of brief mentions of the refusal of incumbent to debate her. That leaves the NBC News. Here: [11]. It ran on something called NBC Asian (they also have NBC black and NBC Latino) So, it's on a big netwrok, but it's not quite the same as national coverage. This is the sole profile that is not local, however, like the local articles, it falls under routine coverage of an as yet unelected candidate. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect this will necessarily change your view of the sum here, but since AfD is often where the status of specific sources gets established, I want to note this strikes me as a troubling misreading of the NBC source. http://www.nbcnews.com/news currently has seven verticals presented in a row on its homepage, all in same font size: U.S., World, Investigations, Crimes & Courts, Asian America, Latino and NBCBLK. I don't think we'd interpret, for instance, NBC's crime coverage as "not quite the same as national" just because it's broken out from the U.S. coverage. So I'd urge us to treat the Asian America vertical equally, both because I think that's the most accurate interpretation of the source (if anything, NBC dedicating a whole staff to a subject area arguably underscores NBC's view of the topic's significance) and thus an WP:NPOV obligation (to defer to the secondary source, rather than inserting a wiki-editor's independent analysis), but additionally to make sure we don't accidentally imply or worse, in fact impose a standard that the Asian America material is discounted because of its Asianness. Want to emphasize I don't think there are bad intentions here; rather I'd advocate hewing closely to the source here to help us ward off unintended bias. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.. Michig (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Braeley[edit]

Jon Braeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

self-written self-promotional tone with puffery in the lead, sourced to his own IMDB and an inaccessible item Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as by far nothing minimally convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing close to secondary coverage I've found is this short article, which is basically just a YouTube link. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be an autobiography with no indication of notability. My search found no significant independent coverage and none is given in the article. Papaursa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kudos for the portrait, which is orders of magnitude better than the usual crap images attached to autobiographical/promotional fare. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independent coverage and no evidence of notable accomplishments.Mdtemp (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Millbug talk 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable architect and photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Black Belt magazine mentioned could show some notability, but there is no any evidence online about such mention ever existed. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G5, unattributed copy paste. A good faith creation with proper sourcing can be done without having to ask me or taking this to DRV. —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goat Farming[edit]

Goat farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much of the material appears to have been copied (without attribution) from Goat#Agriculture. The new material is in poor English and does not appear to add significantly to the content of Goat#Agriculture. David Biddulph (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because this article is separate article from the content of another article Goat#Agriculture. There are some more citations and additional contents too. I was just trying to create separate article for Goat#Agriculture. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 04:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had PROD-ed the article before [12] with the reason "Does not expand on the existing article section on the topic in any significant way.", so the author pretty much just copied that article into his own and removed the PROD tag. GSMR (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. Though I do see that other editors have come along and cleaned up his Animal husbandry in Nepal and Poultry farming In Nepal. If people are willing to fix this article, in the same way, I suppose TNT wouldn't apply. I'm just not willing to, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have not encountered WP:TNT before. Is the idea that the article is deleted and then re-written from scratch? This would overcome the lack of attribution for the start of the current article. If this is the case, I am willing to work on the re-writing. It would be in keeping with articles such as Sheep farming, Pig farming and Cattle-farming. DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DrChrissy: yes please help to improve the quality of this article by adding something new. This article is useful in wikipedia.—Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 01:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I'm going to strikethrough my delete !vote at this time, if editors are willing to help improve the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Biddulph:'s comment about attribution is what I am concerned about. I do not want to work on an article which is later deleted because of this. It seems to me to be easiest to delete the article and start again to avoid further concerns about attribution. DrChrissy (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this Afd is far from over and DrChrissy, if you decide to actually !vote here, you might play a role in retaining this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. Re-writing of the article from scratch will mean attribution concerns can be addressed. DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is recreated by another editor after deletion, it should, of course, be titled Goat farming, not Goat Farming; the author of this version appears not to understand MOS:CAPS although it has been pointed out to him. David Biddulph (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi David. I have already noted this. You might want to take a look at my User page to see the lists of articles I have started and edited. Recreation will be in (hopefully) good hands, but input from others is always welcome. DrChrissy (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious spam by COI editor, notability isn't the main issue here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waycaller Chronicles[edit]

Waycaller Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete; consensus, while not unanimous, is clear. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Paparigopoulou[edit]

Lena Paparigopoulou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding evidence of notability for this person. -- Tavix (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: National winner of a Miss Universe qualifying pageant. I believe this level of winner tends to be deemed notable per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:WINNEROUTCOMES - however this article is not out of danger. Can we try to find any other outlets and see if we can get anymore assertions that would certainly survive this AFD? Hx7 09:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of linking to a vague essay that doesn't address this person's notability, could you provide evidence that this person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources? That's what our policy is: WP:GNG. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no coverage, apart from Wikipedia Mirrors. So it's going to have to be a delete. Hx7 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My take is that if being a national-level winner of a Miss Universe pageant is deemed notable (Miss USA virtually always is), then it's a keep. If we do decide this one is a not notable or TOOSOON, then I STRONGLY advocate doing a merge and redirect instead of leaving a red link out there to tempt recreation of the article. Montanabw(talk) 20:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't seem to have much coverage from even a quick Google search. Perhaps Paparigopoulou could be included in a list of some sort, but not her own article. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't speak Greek, but I used google translate to render the subject's name in Greek characters (Λενα Παπαρηγοπουλου ) and then searched Greek news sources. I got a fair number of hits, but they're all Greek to me. I don't think this oughtta be deleted, at least not until someone can assess the results like these: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. David in DC (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am Greek and the sources provided above are just mentioning Lena Paparigopoulou or simply her surname. I did a google search in Greek sources and news websites and didn't find something notable about this person, except that she gained some fame because of the contest she took part in back in 2002, and a bit of a controversy that made reality shows and websites of that kind just discussing the life of that person. The sources provided above are all from websites and newspapers that can be said to be reliable in Greek media and are not just reality websites. But actually only the first source provided is mentioning Lena and simply comments on her looks in one event. All other sources are mentioning her surname. The 2rd source doesn't mention Lena, but a street named with her surname, the 3nd mentions a place named with her surname and the 4th another person with the same surname. The 5th mentions again the street... And of course the streets are named after Constantine Paparrigopoulos and not Lena. So no notability here at all. SucreRouge (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Nygaard[edit]

Lester Nygaard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see that this character satisfies WP:GNG; IMO it sould be a redirect altho I am not sure whether the actor or the series would be the best target. TheLongTone (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Neutral at the moment, but if this is going to be redirected, it should surely be to our article on the first series of Fargo, not to our article on Freeman. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RS already in the article, plus a cursory review of the Google News links above, demonstrate that there is adequate independent RS coverage of the character to merit a separate article per WP:GNG. I agree with J Milburn that, if redirected, either as an (unsupportable, IMHO) outcome of this AfD or later editorial decision, Fargo (season 1) would be the appropriate redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also somewhat neutral, but I definitely wouldn't delete, but redirect to Fargo (season 1). The article needs much more work to be able to stand on its own, mainly because the character article doesn't have anything that isn't already covered in the season article (plot, reception). Would also like to point out that the same editor also created articles for other Fargo characters: Lorne Malvo, Molly Solverson, and Peggy Blumquist – which are all about the same in terms of content as this one. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fargo (season 1), which is most likely where visitors would start to look for the character and what tells more about the character than its own separate article. Two-thirds of it are about Freeman's performance. — Wyliepedia 13:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as there's still not the needed substance for its own article and there would not be any because it's only a TV character. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Wyliepedia. I could see there being sufficient coverage for a separate article, but I'm not convinced that there is at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck as the article has been expanded. No opinion at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else we might have to do the same with Lorne Malvo, Molly Solverson, and Peggy Blumquist. GazetoBic (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty poor argument. Maybe deleting those other articles would be the right option. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I said "or else we might have to do the same with" those articles. It is quite strange that the OP just picked only this article out of the four of them. --GazetoBic (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, this can't be taken into consideration if it's simply tossing "other articles" and not actually commenting about this one per se. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . As the creator of article, I have added many things (full out Plot Summary, Reception, Casting and other production notes) that wouldn't be on Fargo Season 1 wikipedia page. Joef1234 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not enough to suggest its own convincing article, there certainly is going to be information, but not enough outside the series to suggest his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't the fact that the Martin Freeman was nominated for an Emmy and a Golden Globe for his performance of the character add to his notability? Almost seems like a SNOW keep to me.--GouramiWatcherTalk 04:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator may not realize that his nomination statement -- "he did appear in the Olympics" -- amounts to an automatic keep under WP:NOLYMPICS. Criterion 1 of WP:SKCRIT would therefore apply. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Nelson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Douglas Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub of a subject that only appears in listings and has no significant coverage whatsoever. He did appear in the Olympics but did not win anything so I doubt that constitutes notability. ALongStay (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on batch action, unbundled renomination welcome. While editors arguing for deletion have pointed out that many past AfDs on football club season articles at the same level have resulted in deletion, there is disagreement on whether or not WP:NSEASON implies all such articles should be deleted. Then the discussion defaults to trying to apply WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE and brought up discussions about individual articles. So I'm closing this as no consensus on batch outcome, but individual AfD renominations on specific problems with content and sourcing of each article are welcome. Deryck C. 10:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season[edit]

2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the team wasn't playing in a WP:FPL; also fails WP:GNG. All those refs look good but they are all WP:ROUTINE (transfer announcements and the like). Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

2010–11 Cambridge United F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Crawley Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Darlington F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Grimsby Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Luton Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Mansfield Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Wrexham F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the WP:NSEASONS failure. I enjoyed reading the claim that it was Cambridge's 98th season playing in the Conference National though. Number 57 11:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though they are all failures according to the rules, maybe the rules need re-assessing, the fifth tier is majority professional and what is going to happen when the Football League expands in the next few years are these pages going to be valid? Not trying to be awkward but just hate seeing peoples hardwork and passion deleted, but rules are rules i guess. Iantheimp (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iantheimp: No they wouldn't pass NSEASONS when the 5th tier turns pro as it based on the status of the league the year the season happened not the current or future status of the league. -Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - non-notable per WP:NSEASONS, fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per WP:NSEASONS, long standing consensus, as observed in more detail here is that clubs in non-fully professional leagues are not notable enough for their own individual season articles. Furthermore, there is nothing in any of these articles that would satisfy wider GNG, as, essentially without exception the articles are either:
  1. Stat dumps that do nothing other than list results and league tables
  2. Are sourced entirely from primary sources, i.e. the clubs own website
  3. Rely heavily on routine match reporting which long-standing consensus agrees is insufficient for notability as this sort of journalism occurs even at very low, local levels.
Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got as far the first reference on the first page [18] looks like it meets WP:GNG to me - if being promoted to the Football League for the first time ever isn't notable, I don't know what is. Not sure this should be done en masse. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a match report, which (as pointed out twice already in this AfD) falls under under WP:ROUTINE coverage and does not contribute to the article passing WP:GNG. Number 57 16:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A report of a match, where the team was promoted to the football league for the first time in their history is most certainly not routine. There are numerous other articles documenting this aspect of the season including [19], [20]. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point, why isn't the featured article of 2010-11 York City F.C. season mentioned in the above list? Iantheimp (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it is a GA I wanted to give it a separate nomination because it could be more contentious. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hang on - your not suggesting you plan to ask for the deletion of a featured article? Other than being a FA, how does that article differ from this one? Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nfitz: It is not a featured article. It is a GA. There is difference. Normally being a GA would indicate the article has the sources required to pass GNG, but if you look at the review of the article in question; no comments were made by the reviewer (highly unusual) and it was speedily passed. As GA is a individual review anything can be passed so that doesn't mean it has adequate reliable sourcing. Normally incorrect GA promotions are picked up by others but this one clearly has not been. Has GA has formal delisting processes it would be easier for everyone if it was AFDed separately. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops, my error; time for some reading glasses! Though I feel that ALL the articles should be listed separately, given how contentionous deleltion of 5th tier and sometimes 6th tier articles are, especially when for the teams are bobbing back and forth into the Football League. I've only addressed the primary article that has been nominated, because it is so clear cut that it meets WP:GNG especially with the foreign coverage. It's too confusing to start trying to nominate contentious and different situations. Can I ask that you remove the other articles, and list them separately, when this discussion closes? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • On what basis should the article be delisted? Which criteria does the article fail to meet? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Routine match reporting isn't enough and if an individual event is notable enough, it should be covered in a club history article. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of the above are fully professional clubs and the majority of which are in the English Football League at present. A number of these articles are notable for their achievements, specifically Crawley being promoted to the Football League for the first time in their history, AFC Wimbledon being promoted to the Football League for the first time as their phoenix club, Luton reaching the play-off final, Wrexham reaching the play-offs, Darlington winning the FA Trophy and Mansfield finishing as runners-up in the FA Trophy. Furthermore, a lot of the information included in these articles is difficult to find since the majority of club websites removed a lot of their historical information relating to previous seasons and now only include articles from 2013–14 onwards. In my opinion, it is wrong to delete articles with information that isn't easily available and include archived web pages. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the above has any basis in Wikipedia policy though. Number 57 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If none of the above has any basis in Wikipedia policy, then why after almost six years since the articles were created are they only getting flagged up now? If they had been deleted immediately after their creation, then it wouldn't have been contentious to do so. However, since it has been left until this point and considering the amount of work that has been put into these articles, it is much more contentious to delete them. Therefore, I believe a compromise needs to be made, either merging season articles for clubs who have spent a short time outside the Football League together into one article or making suggestions within the articles to make them comply with WP:GNG. I don't accept that the list of season articles provide sufficient information as they only document a club's record in each competition and don't include information such as the players who were at the club etc. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as still not enough to suggest their own notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clubs at Conference Premier/National League level receive much the same level of coverage to that of many Football League clubs, from both national and local media. We should bear in mind that WP:NSEASONS is not sport specific; none of the five bullet points seem to apply in any way to an association football club season. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've misread the guideline – the bullet points specifically refer to college sports teams (note the colon at the end of the line starting "For college sports teams," prior to the bulleted list). Number 57 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But the only criterion, by my reckoning, appears to be that the team competes in a "top professional leagues". How does one define "top"? One could argue that Championship, Leagues One and Two don't merit that status, and therefore we could see hundreds of these articles (wrongly I would argue) nominated for deletion. Not relevant to this discussion perhaps, but it's an ambiguity that needs addressing. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The football WikiProject have always interpreted "top professional leagues" as referring to fully-professional leagues, i.e. not the Football Conference. Number 57 16:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a valid point that I'm completely in agreement with. BBC Sport has had a page dedicated to the Football Conference/Conference Premier/National League for as long as I remember. They also give just as much coverage of the National League as they do for League One or League Two. Furthermore, the National League is given equal status to the Premier League and Football League in terms of each club having a dedicated page on their website. Local newspapers don't only write/report on Premier League or Football League clubs, they are also inclusive of National League clubs. The National League doesn't receive the respect it deserves and there certainly isn't a statement within WP:NSEASONS that justifies nominating Football Conference/Conference Premier/National League club seasons for deletion. LTFC 95 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC website isn't particularly about each clubs season though and surely it is WP:ROUTINE source anyway because it ij just routine match coverage that many non-notable leagues receive worldwide. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is very much a misconception to believe that National League clubs only receive routine match coverage. I only gave BBC as an example to justify why the National League is just as notable as some of the leagues above it. Why else would they cover it on their website if it isn't notable? There are many non-routine articles that have been published previously relating to a National League club's season, an example of which was referenced above which is mistakenly being treated as routine. LTFC 95 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article referenced above is a match report, which is specifically cited at WP:ROUTINE as something that is routine coverage :/ Number 57 22:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • As stated above, the New York Times article and also the Daily Mail article are not routine as they are not match reports. These were what I was referring to, not the BBC Sport match report. LTFC 95 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you are talking about this, it is a brief history of the club plus some details about the play-off final match – nothing about the wider 2010–11 season whatsoever. The Daily Mail article is exactly the same – some background to the club and some detail about the play-off final game – again, nothing about the wider 2010–11 season. These articles could be used to justify the notability of the club (were that ever needed) but certainly nothing to do with the season article in question. Number 57 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, to summarise, the arguments in favour of deletion are (1) WP:GNG and (2) WP:NSEASONS. The arguments in favour of keeping are (1) not agreeing with the guidelines, (2) WP:HARDWORK and WP:LONGTIME, (3) a mistaken claim about the guideline that actually refers to college sports, (4) the fact that these clubs were previously or went on to become Football League clubs and that some past or future seasons of the clubs do pass the guidelines, and (5) claims of WP:GNG using news articles that are either WP:ROUTINE or don't actually refer specifically to the subject in question. Number 57 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the summary in your opinion. There is a game from this season that has it's own article ([2011 Conference Premier play-off Final]])! The media articles like you've dismissed that meet WP:GNG that only exist because of this season, demonstrates that WP:GNG is met in the opinion of others. At the same time, it's a bit problemeatic with these teams that bounce back and forth to the Football League, to have some, but not other season articles. In the case of Wimbledon, how come you want to delete a 5th tier season, but are happy to continue editing the 9th tier season - 2003–04 AFC Wimbledon season yourself? Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a summary from my viewpoint as an admin (certainly it's how I'd read this discussion if I was closing it). And if your final point is the best argument you can come up with, I think we're done here. My edits to that article were part of a series of edits to correct links to two other articles – I would have zero problem with that article being deleted too. Number 5
        • My final point is merely pointing out your inconsistency. If you think that's my main point, you should be deadmined, quite frankly! Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 16:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Due to the inconsistency i think the guidelines for the fifth tier need looking into especially as in a couple of season it will be part of the English Football League system, the passion someone has for AFC Wimbledon is no different than someone with passion for Real Madrid, but nothing has been said about the 20 odd season pages on Real Madrid or Barcelona before they joined La Liga (some seasons they only played one match) or even the 18 season pages for Southampton before they joined the Football League? Why don't these fifth tier pages get stopped before the season starts? There are 10 fifth tier pages for last season! and lets be honest some of these pages are better than football league pages, not after an argument but wouldn't it be easier to let people add fifth tier pages rather than delete? Thank you Iantheimp (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What inconsistency? Almost all AfDs on these season articles have resulted in deletion, with a few ending up as no consensus (some of which have gone on to be deleted after a second discussion). You may well be right about what the future holds, but it doesn't apply now. Number 57 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You raise that, but a smarter mind than I noted that there have only been 3 AFDs for 5th tier season articles this year - and one of those was for a case of too soon. The other two were for teams that have never played higher than 5th tier and have since fallen back to where they typically are. None have had feature articles in foreign newspapers. The inconsitency is that there have only been 3 AFDs, and yet there remain hundreds if not thousand articles for 5th tier seasons - how is that not inconsistent? Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That there have only been three this year is not really relevant; there have been at least a dozen AfDs on these articles that have resulted in deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). If there is inconsistency, where are all the ones that resulted in keep? I can't find any. The "hundreds if not thousand articles" claim is simply untrue. Number 57 07:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that WP:NSEASONS references college sports and not association football alone makes the argument for deletion of all these articles unconvincing. Furthermore, I think the amount of interest and discussion that has taken place in favour of keeping these articles suggests there is a genuine desire to improve them and further demonstrate their notability. The fifth tier comprises of a large number of professional clubs and there is no reason why a professional club, such as all of the above which are included in this nomination shouldn't have a season article. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a rather misleading statement. The guideline mentions college sports as further clarity in this area is needed. Other sports are not singled out because the application of the guideline is obvious. Number 57 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As already mentioned above, WP:NSEASONS is not sport specific, but it only goes into detail of the guidelines of college sports. More clarity is needed for association football and needs to be revisited by WikiProject Football, specifically because "top professional leagues" can be interpreted differently and considering the format of the English football league system is currently under review. Furthermore, it states the articles should "consist mainly of well-sourced prose" which the Cambridge, Luton and Newport articles, for example demonstrate. The guideline is very vague and therefore encourages differences in the way it is interpreted, as demonstrated in this discussion. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_17&oldid=1142622380"