Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Procedural close. This AfD was never properly opened, and never added to a daily logpage, and it was never properly closed with the proper templates. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 21:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Garagepunk66

User:Garagepunk66 (edit | [[Talk:User:Garagepunk66|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

This deletion nomination is for my user page put here by 24.114.83.151, a vandal. Please remove this. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

J Barry Grenga

J Barry Grenga (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)

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG or NARTIST. The only things I find on this person are social media like LinkedIn. He seems to be a student film maker and "Slow Dancin' Down The Aisles Of The Quickcheck" is a student film on YouTube. I see no evidence it won an Emmy or an Academy Award as claimed in the article. Jbh^Talk 23:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Based on expanded content these are "Student" and "College" Emmy/Academy Awards. Not notable but at least not an absurd-on-its-face claim. Jbh^Talk 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The only thing he apparently ever did was being a producer for a short student film which was considered for a number of lower tier film awards. The academy award was a "Student Academy Awards" and he didn't actually won, it was the "bronze medal". He clearly does not pass WP:FILMMAKER with this being his only work. Apart from that there seem to be no sources on him in reliable - or any other - sources, not even passing mentions. Therefore he doesnt satisfy WP:GNG too. Based on that he is not notable and the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The article is complete at this point. To answer some of the points mentioned he's 46 years old and not a student.

These awards are now cited in the article and are also --- PRE internet & received at the same time GOOGLE was launched --- insofar as the online records are not from 2 years ago and so easily recorded by google and bots. The academy awards are more cited than the emmys for some reason. The notability of the person and the film is it pretty much put FSU film school on the map as it were. Prior to this film and its concurrent Academy Award & Emmy Award that film schools' reputation was notable but still questionable in the eyes of the institutions giving the awards aka Academies of TV & Motion Picture. After his thesis film FSU film school "became a thing as it were" the awards ceremonies really began to pay attention to FSU film school after his thesis film, the reputation of the film school is due in no small part to the success of his thesis film. And Student Emmy's and Oscars are considered full tilt "Emmy" and "Academy Award". The citations are documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcitizenx (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mrcitizenx (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Mrcitizenx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Only awards awards won count towards notability. In any event student awards do not count towards WP:FILMMAKER. You need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources ie newspapers (not student papers), magazines, books etc that demonstrates significant critical attention given to the individual not just to the film. See WP:NOTINHERETED. Jbh^Talk 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - we have long ago decided that producers are too common for automatic notability. I see no change in that. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment For your reading pleasure. As an Attorney / Professor I might point to a chain of logic and assist the discussion of inclusion of J Barry Grenga as "notable". (1) The want of online cit able references has been satisfied and the fact that these awards took place when Larry Page / Sergey Brin couldn't afford a cup of coffee should be recognized. (2) Awards that occurred last year will have lots of refs but these were 18 years ago. (3) This Producer's film was if you read the article - the first in that schools history to win a national Academy Award & the first to win both the national Academy Award & national Emmy Award. And the producers efforts in chasing Kodak execs for free film stock resulted in a film (the first in FSU's history to win BIG) this contributed greatly to the reputation of that film school. (3) With regard to the notability of producers as not being notable that is idiocy, if actual shit has an article should not then a Producer be so to given articles ??? And if the much lower on the totem pole script sup has an article so to then should a producer !

[ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces

Mrcitizenx (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The producer is notable because his efforts allowed Meryl Warren from FSU film school to very proudly make this POST.

05/02/13--09:15: Meryl Warren posted a blog post

Meryl Warren posted a blog post

"we won our first Student Academy Award, Slow Dancin' Down the Aisles of the Quickcheck "

The producer is notable because his Kodak hustle resulted in a multi award winning film & received accolades no OTHER fsu film had & the film industry kept an eye on FSU after this film.

aka [1]

Mrcitizenx (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The comment written above is unproductive & pure opinion and clearly indicates laziness on the com-mentor in that he or she has obviously not read the sources ............

In any event student awards do not count towards WP:FILMMAKER. You need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources ie newspapers (not student papers), magazines, books etc that demonstrates significant critical attention given to the individual not just to the film. See WP:NOTINHERETED. JbhTalk 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

........... If you think Academy Awards and Emmy Awards and Screenings at Cannes "do not count" you are mistaken. Such awards count in every way to all those who are involved in that industry. Receiving those award opens doors immediately and --- quadruples --- your income coming out of a film school. This particular producer is probably one of less than 5 people in the world who've won both awards.

And also the cited page of notability standards does not in any way preclude shun or disregard student work.

Quote of WP:CREATIVE

Creative professionals Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Mrcitizenx (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mrcitizenx: Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources (except in some special circumstances which do not apply here) then a subject may not have an article on Wikipedia. AfD is a discussion in which arguements are made based solely on Wikipedia's policies and content guidelines. Arguments which consist of special pleadings, WP:OTHERSTUFF, incredulity etc will have no effect on the outcome. There is one and only one way to keep an article on Wikipedia that does not have adequate coverage in reliable sources - find some independent reliable sources and add them to the article.

You should also read what it means to be notable by Wikipedia standards. It is a very specific definition and it centers around what reliable sources exist to write and verify and article. It really has nothing to do with real world achievement and deleting an article is not making a value judgement on a person's accomplishments. Wikipedia exists only to document what secondary sources have already talked about.

You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. So you can properly format your comments. (Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.) Jbh^Talk 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete When someone's top claim to fame is being the Producer of a student film on YouTube they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As a counterpoint to your argument of this producer not being notable & evidence of the wikipedia admins' process as deeply deeply flawed as to notability I put forth this person whom I randomly googled and found has a bio article and is not notable, as to your definitions (do fake tech projects and references leading to nowhere make one NOTABLE ???). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clarke_(computer_scientist) This person and purported and so called (?computer scientist?) is very much less notable, uses blogs as references and clearly created his own page. So the definitions of notability must be then, applied equally. If Ian Clarke is not notable and has an article, then so to the producer in question, should as well.Mrcitizenx (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry but you are simply wasting your time making arguements like this. Wikipedia even has a term for it WP:OTHERSTUFF and such arguements are simply ignored. Also, please properly format and thread your responses Approval means nothing and continually breaking the threading makes it hard for others to follow the conversation. I gave you a link to a one page tutorial, please read it. If you, as I assume, want to !vote to keep then change your first comment to a bold Keep. As I said before - find and cite sources about the person not the film. Editors here are willing to change their minds and !votes. But they must be convinced with good sources - nothing else, just good sources. Jbh^Talk 01:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The producer made the film when Al Gore invented the internet 18 years ago. Most sources being so old 18 years are not recorded online. The sources that could be found have been found. The film was made by the producer so the sources for the film are for the producer. I could contact the two Academies and procure official documentation and embed them in the article I suppose but this seems drastic. The article itself could be re titled to that of the film but this seems less relevant. As experienced admins you'll have to simply make a call "noteworthy enough or not" ! Obviously I wrote article my first so my position is keep ! Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia rules & guidelines themselves state J Barry Grenga as Producer is noteworthy & an article appropriate. Section "People notable for only one event" as stated by WP:SINGLEEVENT and I quote states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". And the first Academy Award & first Academy Award & Emmy Award combination for that film school, is "highly significant". Therefore according to the rules & guidelines of Wikipedia I ask for termination of the deletion request. Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass GNG, nor I didn't find those local awards noteworthy. I also tried Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the outcome was not his notability! Sorry, maybe it's too soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Obvious WP:SOCKS are obvious (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrcitizenx)

Keep SEVEN members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are huddled around a desk as I comment. Our membership in the Academy ranges from 3 years to 27 years. In terms of notability of J Barry Grenga and his contributions to the reputation of FSU Film School, his participation in launching that film school into the "internal los angeles discussions" are incalculable in our collective opinions. We are the authority on the matter not you. Mr. Grenga's film was as mentioned the first of it's kind at FSU receiving an Oscar & Emmy & in Cannes. The article should absolutely remain and if it doesn't members of the "retired" Hollywood community will repost the article. The notion that some person sitting behind their computer would question the absolute honor of winning those awards is preposterous. His article was brought to our attention this last week. To comment on the references the point was made of these awards dating to the founding of google so yes there was an article in Variety the La Times and so forth however google was not in existence to record said article. Someone at the Emmy's has also noticed the lack of his Emmy noted on IMDB and that was taken care of this past week & should be listed on IMDB shortly. In our opinions FSU film school was also as mentioned just barely noticeable. After Mr. Grenga received his Emmy and a few months later Mr. Jackson his Oscar, the "notability" as you folks harp on of FSU Film School went through the roof ! End of story. SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep Though you've never heard of Mr. Grenga I can assure you his name is know in hollywood circles though he's not worked there in many years. I think the lot of you have no real understanding of what it means to be accepted in an MFA Film School. From a statistical point of view it's easier to get into Harvard Medical School than it is any graduate film school. MFA film programs are coveted by students around the globe and tens of thousands of people apply and very few get accepted. Of the few accepted many quit from the pressure and workload and of those left still fewer are , selected , by the faculty to play key roles in the MFA thesis film process. Of say 50,000 applicants from around the globe Mr. J Barry Grenga was selected for as we understand several MFA programs of which he has his choice. So on the notion of what is "notable" lets really explore that. What is notable ? Someone like Kim Kardashian becomes notable from a sex tape and step father Bruce Jenner for gold metals initially. Notability is not just a general public issue as in these cases but also it's category specific. Right now all around the world young men and woman probably to the tune of more than 100,000 are hurriedly filling out applications to MFA film shcools (NYU, USC, AFI). Twenty years ago that was the list of MFA film programs of note, of notability. The list now reads (NYU, USC, AFI, FSU). Mr. Grenga is no small part responsible for the catapulting of FSU's reputation. Not being from the world of film you folks seem not to understand the gravity of the EMMY and OSCAR, and it's relevancy and affect on a film schools reputation ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-ONE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-TWO SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-THREE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FOUR SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FIVE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SIX SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SEVEN SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep More to the point it can be said the Mr. J Barry Grenga is single handedly responsible for the erudite & exalted reputation of FSU Film School. His MFA thesis film won the EMMY and OSCAR and CANNES triple combination of awards because he convinced Kodak to supply a voluminous amount of film stock. His procurement of extra film stock allowed Slow Dancing to be filmed in the same way a professional production would be shot. What that means is you just keep shooting the scene until you get the performances needed from the actor VS having to stop short of a quality performance to make sure you have enough film left for the film shoot. Mr. Grenga made sure his film had MORE film stock than any other MFA thesis film in FSU history. The winning of the EMMY the OSCAR the screening at CANNES was due to extra film stock which allowed the director good performances from the actors. Let's suppose Mr Grenga hadn't gone to fsu and went to another film school. His film there at say NYU would probably have also won the awards. In that case FSU film school might to this day still not have won both the EMMY and OSCAR. In that case the reputation of FSU film school would be much less and the list would still be (NYU, USC, AFI). SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep There is a reason HE was selected Valedictorian and not the films Director Tom Jackson ! At the MFA screening the audience loved the film ! The faculty knew they had a winner on their hands ! The faculty knew who was responsible for what ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep The main person objecting to this article USER:JBH is violating wikipedia regulations and will be reported to the site. He keeps deleting comments in favor of the article. He deleted the following comments ... Keep SEVEN members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are huddled around a desk as I comment. Our membership in the Academy ranges from 3 years to 27 years. In terms of notability of J Barry Grenga and his contributions to the reputation of FSU Film School, his participation in launching that film school into the "internal los angeles discussions" are incalculable in our collective opinions. We are the authority on the matter not you. Mr. Grenga's film was as mentioned the first of it's kind at FSU receiving an Oscar & Emmy & in Cannes. The article should absolutely remain and if it doesn't members of the "retired" Hollywood community will repost the article. The notion that some person sitting behind their computer would question the absolute honor of winning those awards is preposterous. His article was brought to our attention this last week. To comment on the references the point was made of these awards dating to the founding of google so yes there was an article in Variety the La Times and so forth however google was not in existence to record said article. Someone at the Emmy's has also noticed the lack of his Emmy noted on IMDB and that was taken care of this past week & should be listed on IMDB shortly. In our opinions FSU film school was also as mentioned just barely noticeable. After Mr. Grenga received his Emmy and a few months later Mr. Jackson his Oscar, the "notability" as you folks harp on of FSU Film School went through the roof ! End of story. SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep Though you've never heard of Mr. Grenga I can assure you his name is know in hollywood circles though he's not worked there in many years. I think the lot of you have no real understanding of what it means to be accepted in an MFA Film School. From a statistical point of view it's easier to get into Harvard Medical School than it is any graduate film school. MFA film programs are coveted by students around the globe and tens of thousands of people apply and very few get accepted. Of the few accepted many quit from the pressure and workload and of those left still fewer are , selected , by the faculty to play key roles in the MFA thesis film process. Of say 50,000 applicants from around the globe Mr. J Barry Grenga was selected for as we understand several MFA programs of which he has his choice. So on the notion of what is "notable" lets really explore that. What is notable ? Someone like Kim Kardashian becomes notable from a sex tape and step father Bruce Jenner for gold metals initially. Notability is not just a general public issue as in these cases but also it's category specific. Right now all around the world young men and woman probably to the tune of more than 100,000 are hurriedly filling out applications to MFA film shcools (NYU, USC, AFI). Twenty years ago that was the list of MFA film programs of note, of notability. The list now reads (NYU, USC, AFI, FSU). Mr. Grenga is no small part responsible for the catapulting of FSU's reputation. Not being from the world of film you folks seem not to understand the gravity of the EMMY and OSCAR, and it's relevancy and affect on a film schools reputation ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-ONE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-TWO SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-THREE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FOUR SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FIVE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SIX SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SEVEN SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep More to the point it can be said the Mr. J Barry Grenga is single handedly responsible for the erudite & exalted reputation of FSU Film School. His MFA thesis film won the EMMY and OSCAR and CANNES triple combination of awards because he convinced Kodak to supply a voluminous amount of film stock. His procurement of extra film stock allowed Slow Dancing to be filmed in the same way a professional production would be shot. What that means is you just keep shooting the scene until you get the performances needed from the actor VS having to stop short of a quality performance to make sure you have enough film left for the film shoot. Mr. Grenga made sure his film had MORE film stock than any other MFA thesis film in FSU history. The winning of the EMMY the OSCAR the screening at CANNES was due to extra film stock which allowed the director good performances from the actors. Let's suppose Mr Grenga hadn't gone to fsu and went to another film school. His film there at say NYU would probably have also won the awards. In that case FSU film school might to this day still not have won both the EMMY and OSCAR. In that case the reputation of FSU film school would be much less and the list would still be (NYU, USC, AFI). SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep There is a reason HE was selected Valedictorian and not the films Director Tom Jackson ! At the MFA screening the audience loved the film ! The faculty knew they had a winner on their hands ! The faculty knew who was responsible for what ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I will try to contact wikiepedia and report his obvious bios and unethical behavior, as well as redact his edit. Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This is apparently a person notable for only one event. According to his IMDb entry, he produced an award-winning student film 17 years ago, but has no other film or television credits before or since. The article gives no indication about what he has done since 1999 -- whether he stayed in the film industry or pursued some other profession -- nor do any of the sources focus specifically upon Grenga as opposed to the film or other personnel of it. (By contrast, this source used in the article at least has three paragraphs of biography of the film's lead actor. I haven't found anything comparable about Grenga himself.) This is not meant to be a slam at Grenga or at the film (which I actually saw myself at the time in a showcase of films being considered for the Student Academy Awards). And saying that the film is a "YouTube" film is misleading because the film was made a few years before YouTube existed, and merely happened to be uploaded later on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Not even close to passing GNG. And by god, what does a producer on a student film do anyway? Order the pizza? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I see a bunch of non-RS sources (IMDb, LinkedIn), some student awards, and press releases from the subject's alma mater. Fails WP:FILMMAKER as noted by jbh. For the record I was brought here by a bunch of drama-ful complaining about this AfD on COIN. It comes as no surprise that the complainant says here he is an attorney. - Brianhe (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete While this person may be notable in the eyes of the people who created this article, he's not notable as that term is defined in our rules. There's no evidence on the page, as it currently stands, of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I can find none with an admittedly less-than-exhaustive bit of googling, either.
  It's regrettable that the folks who created the article have taken offense at this analysis; they'retheir contentions about the notability of this person are, no doubt, asserted in good faith. And our rules can be inscrutable to new editors. But that's not sufficient reason to keep this article. David in DC (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 At the End of My Leash. Redirecting to At the End of My Leash, where he is briefly mentioned. Someone might want to expand his information there, to the extent that it can be sourced. MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Brad Pattison

Brad Pattison (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)

Unsourced biography with no tangible assertion of importance. Warning: may contain COI. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge: to At the End of My Leash, the t.v. show he appeared on for six seasons. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge per Safehaven. A person does not automatically qualify for a standalone WP:BLP just for being on a reality show, or for writing a couple of books, if the resulting article is unsourced. The show already has an article, so briefly mentioning him there is appropriate to the context of his notability, but we don't need an article about the show and a separate BLP of him if that separate BLP is this badly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Sysops, please let's close this debate and move on to the rest of the backlog. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of cities in India by nicknames. MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames (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 find my ability to even sadly depleted. A list of towns in an arbitrary area, y "nickname" (i.e. marketing slogan). Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've created this article, this is only to know the nicknames of cities and towns at one place like List of cities in India by nicknames, if other users upon expressing their views find the consensus to be deleted. I accept it.--Vin09 (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Is OR, non-notable trivia and advertising. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to List of cities in India by nicknames: It may sound like a 'marketing slogan' (to few/many people) but is not. All contents of the article are reliably sourced, and it was created by a long-term standing editor. I, however, fail to understand the need for a standalone piece when a similar topic already existed (with plenty of space).

I do not intend to invoke wp:otherstuffsexist; but we already have many similar articles, at least, 50 alone for the United States.

• List of city nicknames in the United States and Category:Lists of city nicknames by U.S. state.

Should I call it a classic example of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS? Anup [Talk] 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to List of cities in India by nicknames. I did not know that the latter existed, but since it does and it's not at AfD then this page should be merged there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 problem with this AfD is that many people on both sides approach it not from a policy perspective (has this topic sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article?), but from a political perspective (is this as politically significant as the Republican opposition to Donald Trump?). That's not to say that this is not a valid approach - after all, the perceived significance of an event does factor into our decision about whether to cover something at the article level. But it means I can't easily weigh the strength of the arguments. Nonetheless, I see only two "keep"s that make a cogent argument based on political significance, and one "keep" that argues that "this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition", which is not anything that I recognize as a valid argument in terms of our policies. This gives us a reasonably solid consensus for "delete". I have to discount the two inscrutable "support" votes, but if they had to be counted I'd guess that they meant to support the nomination for deletion.  Sandstein  08:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (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)

Delete This is an attempt to create a false equalivence and has now been made into mostly Democrats who are celebrities endorsing Jill Stein. This appears to be created solely to counter the Republicans who Oppose Donald Trump article. There appears to be people who are not notable who have been included, and it seems as if this should be deleted.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support --Varavour (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep It's not as notable a phenomenon, but is noticed in parts of "coal country" on the one and some anti-war or anti-multinational Leftists on the other. Plus "false equivalence", in Wikipedia terms, would be more about making unequal positions sound equal. The existence of an article doesn't have to do that. We have LGBT conservatism in the United States even though most LGBT do not poll as conservative. The existence of articles, I think, is more about whether it can be sourced and is notable enough to justify an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • But it does create false equivalence, because there is no movement against Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party, while indeed there is a huge movement against Donald Trump from the Republican Party. LGBT conservatism is an actual thing, because there are millions of LGBT conservatives, and a handful have been elected, and conservatism among LGBT people has been covered as a notable movement of people. Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton has not been covered as a movement apart from individual defectors, of which there is a small number. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • In parts of Appalachia, the one district of Maine, and such it has been noted there seems to be a number of Democrats going for Trump. And whether Stein will draw any disaffected Sanders voters was a topic of discussion. We can have articles on small phenomenon. In fact I think we do it a fair amount. That there is a big movement against Donald Trump, and only a small one against Hillary Clinton that's in a scattering of areas, doesn't mean we must ignore the one for fear of making it sound too big. (Although if you prefer it not being a list I'm open to renaming it Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016 to avoid some of the listing issues and make it a different form of article.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
      • It's such a comparatively small occurrence that psephologists could write an article about and will surely be discussed by campaign strategists in the event of a Clinton 2020 presidential campaign. But in terms of notability, it simply has none. The notable party figures are few, and the news isn't talking about it. This is creating a story where there isn't one, riding close to WP:OR, in the name of impartiality. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Possibly 12% of Democrats isn't that small. And as it's mostly among whites without college education it's going to be of less interest to journalists who tend to be educated. I'm not at all arguing the article should be as big as the other or that we should make articles on every small town Democratic mayor for Trump or college professor who switched to the Green Party, but something on it seems like it can be okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the reasons offered by T. Anthony. I would add that as I was reading the Anti-Trump/GOP page, I found myself wondering if there were a comparable page for Clinton. I assumed there was, and also assumed it would be shorter. Both of my assumptions were correct. Had there not been a comparable page, I might have concluded that there were no notable Democrats anywhere who oppose to Clinton, and that would seem unlikely. Fmjohnson (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • A handful of party figures will always buck the nominee for one reason or another. Trump's surge of opposition in an unprecedented and notable event. Clinton's is standard. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Is there a rule there is not to be articles on things unless they are unusual? Has the media written a great deal on this? No. Is it as notable as the Republican issue? No. (Although again the idea we can only have equally notable topics in order to make an article I don't think is any kind of rule. We have an article on USA Next even though AARP is much larger. And as makes sense AARP is the larger article by a good deal.) Have they noted this in regard to some regions anyway? Yes. Are we meaning media not linked to the candidate? Considering some of it is papers and magazines endorsing Hillary Clinton, yes.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The mayor of a town of 19,000 who doesn't even have his own page. Two C-list celebs. An RFK speechwriter with a stub for a page. And Cornel West (who I'm pretty sure was never a registered member of the Democratic Party). If you removed them, you'd have a list of nine people. There is no anti-Clinton movement within the Democratic Party, despite certain elements wishing there was. Jim Webb and the probably-never-a-Democrat-in-the-first-place West are really the only people even remotely relevant in regards to the 2016 election. This smacks of people trying to create a false equivalence between the candidates. Furthermore, the GOP mutiny against Trump, especially after the convention, remains one of the largest storylines in this election. The reason we made a list article for Republicans opposing Trump as opposed to "Republican and conservative support for Hillary Clinton" a-la Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 is because the sheer number of Republicans - and prominent Republicans, not just the mayors of towns with 19,000 people - who oppose his candidacy. Hillary Clinton is not facing any-mutiny from the Democratic Party, let alone one even remotely close to the size of Trump's. At most the people (with articles) should be listed on each candidate's endorsements page for their preferred presidential candidate. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Per MAINEiac4434. Trump opposition is rampant and reaches to the highest level of government and intelligentsia. Clinton party opposition is sparse and mostly isolated to celebrities. It's an attempt to be unbiased but in reality is unbalanced. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Polls may not really show that, though you think they would. They show Trump opposition is higher, but Democrats not voting for Clinton looked about average in the most recent one I saw. (Also only one celebrity still looks to be on it.) It might be higher in parts of Appalachia, Iowa, or parts of Wisconsin. There are journalists doing a few stories about it[2][3][4][5][6][7]. I'm not claiming it's a huge phenomenon, but that it meets a standard of being verifiable and noted. (and for the record I ended my period as a registered Republican due in part to Trump.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Without any sitting federal- and state-level officials, the credibility of this article is weak. Jusfiq (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - too short a list to matter. In every election a few partisans don't support their nominee, and I don't see how this list is notable. Nothing more than a pile of soapboxen. FWIW, #ImwithHer. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete – Per MAINEiac4434. This article was obviously created in response to the well-established List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (a no-brainer, considering hundreds have opposed Trump's candidacy from his own party and continue to do so). Indeed, this list of 15 people is simply too short, and I fail to see any political relevance or notability to the impending general election. Disclosure: I just don't like silly articles on Wikipedia seeking to create a false equivalence; Trump has many people leaving his party, Clinton does not -- get over it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition whether it is small or not. It gives you perspective and that I think is indeed relevant – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jump Guru: "gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition" -- the word equivelant means: equal of value. Hundreds of Trump opposers versus fifteen Clinton opposers is clearly not equal of value. Hence my comment (and the comments of others) above, that this list only serves as a 'false-equivalance'. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Equivalent is a word, I agree, "keep" voters should stay away from. However there is evidence of pretty strong levels of defection in Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. But "equivalence" is not why I favor keep. I favor keep because it can be valid sourced and is notable. Even if it were only of interest to Appalachia we do have articles like Mount Airy Fiddlers Convention, Vandalia Gathering, Urban Appalachian Council, and the entire Category:Affrilachian Poets as well as much of Category:Coal Wars. Articles can exist on topics not equally important to another article. As mentioned we have articles on USA Next and I could maybe add Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
      • • Yeah I think that's an explicitly political standard. There is something on Wikipedia about "undue weight" but I think that's more about an article making one side look bigger than it is. It's not "undue weight" to have an article on a topic of less media interest or significance than another similar article. There are articles on Black supremacy, Nicaraguan exceptionalism, Category:Front organizations, and maybe others could fit. It existing isn't giving "false equivalency."--T. Anthony (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. manufactured topic. Not actually discussed as such in the Rw; the arguments here are a ,osture of OR and political propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence that sufficient coverage exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

HostWithLove

HostWithLove (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)

Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Secondary sources do not support the notability of the subject - article is written with a promotional tone. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly not notable as sources such as whois and business databases don't support the notability of the subject. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per coverage. --JessikaRita (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide sources to confirm your claims that it is notable. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, non-notable subject. Article creator is single-purpose account with probable undeclared conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Hardly any coverage in reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as essentially clear advertising, from the listed company information, to services and then where to find and contact them, that's nothing but advertising and is not something we should ever think otherwise about; expected, only one focused account has started and contributed to this so that speaks for itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. High Alexa ranks and Facebook likes are not evidence of notability. Insufficient coverage by reliable source on the contrary is strong evidence of not being notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

MakeUseOf

MakeUseOf (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 entity. Nothing significant about this. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become blog directory. 1000s of blogs website happens every day. Just another one. Similar to The Next Web and Yourstory. Written to promote company or product nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - I disagree that this article covers a non-notable subject. The website is listed at 814 Alexa Global Ranking and has a variety of sources listed on the article. Other similar properties like Engadget have thier own Wikipedia articles because of high traffic and notability and the one for Make Use Of is no different. The page should be updated and additional sources added as per the cleanup tags added last month but the article should not be deleted. --Drmotley (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Alexa Rank is not a criteria for Notability. this website is used to create WikiSpan in massive amount as misleading source of Media coverage. where it is just the form of Churnalism. Articles written here are highly questionable in nature. Written by either affiliate writer or company person. References of such website or even having a article for such website make a wikipedia place for high spam problems. Light2021 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are trying to be argumentative. I am clearly not suggesting that every website should have a Wikipedia article, but a high ranking, along with high readership, high Facebook likes (which is actually a measure of success), suggests notability and makes the page not worth deletion. As I stated before, cleanup needs to be undertaken to improve the quality of the page - which should be relatively easy, but a long standing technology website with high traffic is notable. Could you clarify the term "Wikispan". With regards to Churnalism - I think its doubtful you have even visited the website as they don't even have news coverage. Having viewed your user contributions you seem to have a desire to remove all technology journalism sites from Wikipedia. --Drmotley (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence for notability--minor notices such as every technology firm gets as a matter of course. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - certainly notable enough. There's much coverage on it, it has over 400.000 likes on facebook and the site is very popular. --Fixuture (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Facebook Likes? Seriously? Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes. That is not even a creteria for any kind of notability. Light2021 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Light2021: Yes, seriously - I think such a high number of likes is a very clear indication of notability. It's not the only thing that I named here though. Not sure what you mean by "Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes". --Fixuture (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Simply mean any random object or thing or people or company can make facebook page. You can generate as much as like you want, organic, paid or simply a likes trick. or as per real Logic can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says Facebook like even a considering point of notability. I will Believe! Links or Website such as these are source of Abundance of Spam or junk in Wikipedia these days. Any company or people are using them as source of Media coverage or notability, wherein such source itself are made to promote things and nothing else. Where there are no proof of credible journalism for such website. Merely popular or being visited by thousands of visitors, Alexa rank, Twitter Followers, or high degree of article creation in a website does not make anything notable. As per guidelines. Light2021 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- an unremarkable blog lacking significant RS coverage. Being named "one of the 'Top 100 Undiscovered Websites' in 2007" is a dubious honour. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Created by WP:SPA with probable WP:COI. Facebook likes is not a measure of notability. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus, in line with similar articles DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Gabriele Fumai

Gabriele Fumai (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 meet WP:NPOL. ubiquity (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Municipal councillors do not get a free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — and that goes double for someone who isn't even on the city council, but merely on a borough council. And the sourcing here doesn't assist him in claiming a WP:GNG pass, either — of the four references, two are primary sources and the other two just namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be about him. This is not what it takes to get a municipal councillor in the wikidoor. Bearcat (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. NN municipal politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Do not delete this article because it is a public and political figure in the area in the Metropolitan City of Venice. — 79.16.27.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That's not enough. Not every local politician is notable. According to WP:NPOL, local politicians require "significant press coverage" to be notable. There are two press sources provided in the article: the first quotes from Fumai's twitter feed without providing information about him, and the second merely mentions him in a list of other councillors. This is not enough to demonstrate the kind of notability he needs for an article. ubiquity (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Has many sources outside WP. Notable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis). The headcount is: keep 23, delete 15, merge 23, redirect 2. As a first approximation, therefore, we do not have consensus for any one option, but a clear majority against keeping this as a separate article.

Looking at the arguments advanced, the principal argument for deletion is that this is a WP:BLP1E case, and the principal argument for keeping is the amount of continuing post-debate media coverage he receives. These are all by and large valid arguments, but I note that many "keep" opinions are weakly argued: they are either pure votes (106.129.92.180, Dr who1975, Kabahaly, KGirlTrucker81, Vulpicula) or do not make arguments that address the BLP1E issue (216.100.95.193, Jump Guru, Zanski, 72.230.184.142, OlEnglish, 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D). I must therefore conclude that, after weighing the arguments made in the light of our policies and practices, we have a consensus to not keep this as an article, but no consensus for any specific implementation (delete, merge, redirect).

But considering that merge has the most support, followed by delete, I think that it is proper to close this, for now, as a "selective merge", i.e., merging a condensed version appropriate to the scope and size of the target article. Later discussion and consensus may have to determine whether mention of the topic there is to be reduced even more (if it turns out that coverage does not continue) or whether this article can be recreated as a spinoff article if substantial media coverage continues even after the election.  Sandstein  09:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Kenneth Bone

Kenneth Bone (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)

PROD removed by an IP, concern was: Fails WP:BLP1E (event: United States presidential election debates, 2016). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis) pbp 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Only notable for his question at the debate, and unlikely to have sustained notability. Natg 19 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral After a careful reading of the essay on WP:LOWPROFILE, it seems that Ken Bone is not a "low-profile individual", or at least is not trying to stay a low profile individual. He has made numerous media appearances, and had an AMA on Reddit last week. It appears that he is trying to promote himself with the publicity that he got from the debate, and is not shying from the attention that he received. I'm not sure if that means that he deserves his own article, but I am less convinced that his article should be deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep many notable news sources and sustained notability depends on many things - he is certainly getting the invitations to become even more notable (e.g. Jimmy Kimmel) and he does not seem to be shying away from the attention, so may well be sustained. Scarykitty (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge — He's a meme. Just merge it since he's getting news recognition regardless. He doesn't really deserve a standalone article. Aria1561 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge. He received a large amount of attention after the debate, but for now it seems best to merge (not outright delete, though) into United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis), at least for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to the debate article. There has been coverage of him in RS. Whether it should stay there can be determined afterwards. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge. Widespread media coverage, even on Canadian news. He is considered a notable part of the debate, but not anywhere alse. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 02:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge, for now as that seems to be the consensus due to lots of news sources (even though WP:NOTNEWS and he's known for only WP:ONEEVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge, good coverage, but one event. Coderzombie (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge, agreed, a footnote in a small part of history, better footnoted in wiki Mindme (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge: If he continues to have a good public career, we could look at having a page for him. However, at this time, we're only going off of some attention for one debate. It's the same reason "Tea Lizard" was redirected. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep at least until after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.129.92.180 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — 106.129.92.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge: I agree with DarthBotto. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Agree that it's one event, which should be the debate. Absolutely no reason to make a separate page for this. None. This goes against a lot of wikipedia policies such as only being notable for one very specific thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E, seems undue to merge into a short summary of the debate. He's not yet a Joe the Plumber. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge if any of it is worth including in the article about the debates. Textbook WP:BLP1E. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and re-evaluate notability at a later date.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge at best, even though by election day, his presence at the debate article will probably seem inappropriate. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge A pretty textbook case of WP:BLP1E, but Bone is relevant to the second debate. A sentence or two describing Bone's role in the debate should be sufficient. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't Crispus Attucks also be an example of WP:BLP1E? We don't merge him into the Boston Massacre. Just sayin.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dr who1975: You seem to believe that BLP1E can never apply anywhere. And in order to prove it, you inadvertently compared a debate to the Boston effing Massacre. I foresee your approach not convincing very many people. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 04:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You can always re-create an article if the situation dictates. So if Wikipedia existed back then, Attucks would've started off as a redirect, but then eventually become a full fledged article as his historical/commemorative significance increased. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Crispus Attucks does not fall under BLP1E as he is, funnily enough, not a living person. (And independently notable in his own right.) Robofish (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's true that significant coverage is significant coverage, but for now, I think we'll need some time before this subject can have an article long enough to reach more than just ONEEVENT status editorEهեইдအ😎 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I have added a single sentence about Bone to the presidential debate article. I reckon one sentence may be enough. pbp 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to article on the St. Louis debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Might be WP:TOOSOON but look at what happened to Joe The Plumber. I think the guy is article-worthy, there are WP:RS coming out on him with every passing day. Buffaboy ^talk 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Snow Merge/delete Absurd that an article was even created in the first place, negligible notability, purely news. Reywas92^Talk 04:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete with no mention or redirect anywhere else. This is a distraction. He's just known as a guy who asked a question on TV, currently not suitable as a biography, it's more like "Red sweater guy's question during the debate". WP:ILIKEIT but there were other "events" that happened during the debate like Trump's "Because you'd be in jail" comment [8], Bill Clinton's face at one point [9], a fly landing on Hillary Clinton's face [10] and a fat guy being there [11] that aren't mentioned on Wikipedia.

This one may have been pushed in the media more but it doesn't genuinely look that much more popular than the others. Emily Goldstein (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Emily Goldstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I think Ken should get a page. His twitter account now has 250,000 followers. https://twitter.com/kenbone18?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.157.129 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — 69.160.157.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - I thought I did not see correct. Much less important than the most unimportant Pokemon. Did some people here still realize, what Wikipedia is and what an absolutely short Internet hype Bone is? An Encyclopedia collects the natable KNOWLEGDE of the word and sorted ist, weighted it. To know about a fact is not knowledge. A ridicoulus "article". Shamefull for the whole worldwide Wikimedia movement. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Shamefull - It's also shameful that a senior editor can't spell correctly. --85.197.18.49 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

1. This is, why I don't write articles here. 2. Always funny to see, how people like you talk to legasthenics as me. 3. I never said, my english is good. But it's good enough to understand, who depends to encyclopedias. 4. Did you speak german as good as I do it with english - or maybe an other language? Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge with debate article. Jajasoon (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge with debate article and *SMH* that this was created in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: this man is an important part of the debate and he needs to have his own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.95.193 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — 216.100.95.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge with debate article since has has gotten some media attention but seriosly, all he did was ask a question. Who is notable for just that? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to second debate article. However, if kept, please include the results of my investigative reporting which revealed that the red sweater is washed nightly. [12].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis) per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016. Way, way too premature. This guy's alleged 'fame' hasn't lasted a week yet. Nothing here so far justifies an independent article. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: A tsunami of articles about Ken Bone from many highly reliable sources have appeared over the past few days. A selection of which includes the following:

CBS News

The internet's calling out Ken Bone over his Reddit history

by Jennifer Earl

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-bones-reddit-history/

CNN

Ken Bone leaves seedy comment trail on Reddit

by Sara Ashley O'Brien

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/technology/ken-bone-reddit/index.html?sr=twCNN101416ken-bone-reddit0435PMStoryLink&linkId=29943238

CNN

Ken Bone sells out for Uber

by Seth Fiegerman

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/technology/ken-bone-uber/index.html?iid=EL

New York Times

We May Be Leaving the Ken Bone Zone

By Katie Rogers

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/we-may-be-leaving-the-ken-bone-zone.html

New York Times

Ken Bone Is Closer to Deciding, After Debate

By Jonah Engel Bromwich

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/ken-bone-is-closer-to-deciding-after-debate.html

Washington Post

Ken Bone was a ‘hero.’ Now Ken Bone is ‘bad.’ It was his destiny as a human meme.

By Abby Ohlheiser

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/14/ken-bone-was-a-hero-now-ken-bone-is-bad-it-was-his-destiny-as-a-human-meme/

Fox News

Ken Bone linked to questionable past comments on Reddit

(no byline)

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/10/14/ken-bone-linked-to-questionable-past-comments-on-reddit.html

Time

10 of the Best Ken Bone Memes on the Internet

by Melissa Chan

http://time.com/4526816/ken-bone-presidential-debate-memes/

Time

Ken Bone Talks About His Conversation with Bill Clinton and Memes in Peak Internet Mode

by Cady Lang

http://time.com/4531194/ken-bone-reddit-ama/

Slate

What Ken Bone’s Porn Preferences Tell Us About Internet Privacy Today

By Mark Joseph Stern

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/14/ken_bone_reddit_porn_and_internet_privacy_today.html

While the article needs a lot of work (like many on Wikipedia), I believe there is now little justification for passing this AFD. I urge people who have voted "Delete" or "Merge" to reconsider. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• But will he meet the threshold for WP:SUSTAINED? He seems like just a Reddit meme that went public to me. Furthermore, see WP:BLP1E; he is notable for one event and is likely to stay that way. Also read WP:NOTNEWS. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes GNG per Carl Henderson. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge depth of coverage and length of article not sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Information about Kenneth Bone is fine, and can be incorporated well into the article about the specific debate he appeared in. Otherwise, there's not enough here to support enough text to fill a stand-alone article. Regarding comparisons to Joe the Plumber, if the situation changes in the future, we could revisit this in the future. As it stands today, there simply isn't enough to support a stand-alone article about this subject. The text written in the article is fine, and can be easily moved to the article about the debate with no loss of information for Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vermin Supreme is not just notable for one event. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - I think he's notable enough to warrant his own article. Kabahaly (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 13:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - it seems unlikely he will meet guidelines for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E despite Reddit's aggrandizing and apparent invasion. Wikipedia is not a place for memes. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to comment here, @Therealelizacat this is just simply not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena KingAntenor (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable enough for a standalone article, even if he shouldn't be. See, for instance, [13] [14] [15] [16]. That's a lot of real news organizations reporting on this guy as if he's a part of a major political scandal. This coverage has been sustained for a week and shows no signs of slowing down; it's been increasing, if anything. The coverage has moved beyond the debate entirely, so BLP1E isn't applicable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT more closely. Just because he's getting a flurry of attention does not mean it will be WP:SUSTAINED. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - people should please review WP:ILIKEIT and consider other comments before voting. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge No lasting significance beyond a mention in the debate article. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep He's become far more than internet famous. He's become mainstream media famous and there's still no signs of media coverage slowing down. BlueGold73 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge, protect the redirect, and speedy close. Textbook BLP1E case, and there's now a developing cottage industry devoted to doxing the guy and publicizing his thoroughly unnoteworthy, undeniably unencyclopedic, often embarrassing, internet posting history. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - a two minute appearance on TV is not notability . Wikipedia notability is not driven by meme popularity. This is what Wikipedia is not.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Ken Bone has appeared on national TV for much longer than two minutes, and has been trending on social media sites for significantly longer. He will remain a permanent political meme for American politics. Therefore Bone meets WP:NOTABILITY. A merge with the debates page would just look like undue weight, this page is far more appropriate for any information about him. KingAntenor (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I agree, he will probably remain an icon – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Uncertain - Either Merge or Keep, not sure because the man has multiple New York Times articles about himself, which is itself notable, although I am not certain how that fits in with applicable policies. Skywalker Kush (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete While the idealist in me would like to merge the article, I really can't find much notability on Mr. Bone nor do I think that it fits well within the debate article. — Chevvin 00:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Uncertain - Either Merge or Keep If we have pages for people that most people haven't heard of, for example Aaron Sherinian why aren't we considering his article for deletion instead of this one but merging it would be a good comprimise — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHL36 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — NHL36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Per precedence set by the article Joe the Plumber. "Ken Bone" has about 1,050,000 results on Google News ([17]). "Kenneth Bone" has 138,000 results on Google News ([18]). The NYT even has an article on "The Kenneth Bone Effect" ([19]). An analysis of the news links indicates that Ken Bone is not just discussed for who he is as a person, but also for what he represents (or at least seems to represent) as an "undecided voter". Of course, the media is now also tearing into some of his more negative online history, but that does not do away with the fact that this individual meets all of the standards of notability required by Wikipedia. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The amount of press this guy is getting is immense, and has only been growing over the past week. He's more than just a blip on the radar at this point. Also easily passes GNG. Lizard (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge at best; delete if we're really unforgiving. I cannot at this point see how any keep !votes are justified. "He's getting a ton of coverage". So what? WP:BIO1E exists for a reason; so does WP:RECENT. But for the debate, he'd be just another anonymous Redditor.

  And that brings up another reason we should delete this: if we don't, we will have to keep debating whether to include that or not. As I type, Vanessa Bayer is on Saturday Night Live cracking jokes about exactly that disclosure. And I do not see any reason this should be allowed to follow this guy around for the rest of his life at this point. Or, more to the point, I do not want a project I very much enjoy being part of to be part of the reason he shoots himself two years from now. Not at this point in time, anyway.

  Put it this way: we have allowed Brian Chase to get on with his life; Mr. Bone deserves no less if he wishes to retreat from the limelight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It's like this: when I wanted to know more about Ken Bone, the first place I went was Wikipedia. While it's not perfect, I knew that Wikipedia was the best alternative for general, unbiased information. Perhaps we need an all-purpose "topical" category. Zanski (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only reason he is known is the single question he asked during the presidential debate; everything else he has done is non-notable and would not have been covered if it weren't for the debate question. BLP1E exists for this exact purpose. Bjelleklang - talk 11:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect  This is not a clear decision.  On the one hand we have a timely reasonable article with encyclopedic viewpoint that presents the facts that people want to know who have come to Wikipedia for this information.  The fact that the article is filled with trivia-oids (factoids of trivia) in no way changes that this is what readers want.  This satisfies WP:IAR for a keep result.  We have a huge news spike that hasn't abated, as this morning on NBC's Meet the Press, Bone's Twitter "Likes" before and after the debate were reported.  We also have the second presidential debate coverage "Reception" which will absolutely need to cover this topic as an event, and there might be reason to merge the bio.  We also have WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which says this article under discussion is what Wikipedia is not.  Since I'm from the view that WP:ITN should be closed as a distraction from our core purpose, and that there is no deadline, I take the view that we can wait a couple of months before deciding if this low-profile individual should have a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Ken Bone had appeared on media not just on his appearance on the 2016 Debate, but also for his personal life. Per Carl Henderson. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: The article seems to be fairly accurate, though brief. While the significance of Ken Bone is debatable, it is evident that there is a significant public interest in him. While the article may need to be edited, it is probably best that it be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yr1monroe (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Yr1monroe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep This man has been referenced in national newsmagazines and newspapers, on websites, on Saturday Night Live. Some people seem to make a fetish of nominating articles for deletion. There's no downside in keeping it. Deleting it helps to slowly obliterate the enviable position Wikipedia currently has as the go-to site for all information. Moncrief (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your hyperbole, some other people seem to have a fetish of creating articles of short-lived news-related jokes without lasting notability. I think SNL has sketched a lot of people in 40 years, that doesn't mean there should be an article on all of them. We do not need to emulate knowyourmeme.com. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Tons of media coverage for the internet sensation, especially after the SNL cold open on October 15. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Much like Harambe, Ken Bone is an American hero. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — 72.230.184.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Pretty well established now as a political internet meme. -- œ^™ 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And, probably should be rewritten as such, instead of a regular biography of the man. -- œ^™ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep While I don't think Ken Bone is deserving of his own page, I believe that he made a big enough impact on internet culture that he should not be completely glossed over. That being said, I don't think it is appropriate to merge this with the page on the debate, because, as fun as it was to have him there, he was not an important aspect as to the outcome of the debate. So, the best option is to keep this page. Zjschulman (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Zjschulman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • We can conclude he's made a massive impact on internet culture? You mean one week of jokes and memes? HAHAHAHA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one week is enough to make Ken Bone an Internet sensation. Although we can't truly see if the meme will last in notability, know that almost all memes start to lose popularity over time. We still have articles on those memes as they impacted Internet culture and society at their inception and created a short-term impact. Many news stories seem to be forgotten over time (for instance, Sagamihara stabbings), but we still have articles on them as the event(s) received plenty of news coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need to know any more than "we can't truly see" yet?  Is there a problem with waiting?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Many people want to know information about Ken Bone when he was at his "meme peak" (this past week). Stats on the page's views confirms this. It doesn't make sense to allow an article to be created on him at a later time - Ken Bone is already receiving a lot of news coverage right now. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I see !votes from accounts with fewer than 20 lifetime edits. I'm worried given the media coverage canvassing might be an issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep – I've heard people mention his name for the last week. He belongs on an article here. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - This man is enjoying sustained media coverage and considerable prominence in one of the most important events of the 21st century. If Joe the Plumber has a page, so must Ken Bone. MTG1989 ^talk 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ken Bone is a low-profile individual and reliable sources only cover him in relation to his debate question. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only reason he is known is the single question he asked during the presidential debate; everything else he has done is non-notable and would not have been covered if it weren't for the debate question. BLP1E exists for this exact purpose. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) 17:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Not even debatable. This is pure WP:BLP1E. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's very debatable, that's why we are having a debate. Here is a new piece in FORBES which posits the Bone case as a watershed moment in the nature of 21st Century fame. Will this Warholian "15 minutes of fame" prove to be unsustained in popular culture? Perhaps. But it is far too early to judge that. Based upon the plethora of really big time media coverage, we should err on the side of inclusionism now, perhaps to revisit this a year or two hence. Carrite (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the funniest shit I've seen in ages, thanks for the laugh. It's still BLP1E. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BLP1E; meme that's already suffered its death. (Do any of you remember Occupy Boston? Occupy San José? I don't, either.) Cloudchased (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Possibly delete or merge later, if he fades back into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpicula (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely Delete. In fact I went looking to see if someone had made an article about him, just so I could nominate it for deletion. This is an absolutely classic case of WP:BLP1E. Until last week this person was a totally unknown private citizen. Because he asked a question at a presidential debate, he rocketed from obscurity to internet darling to internet pariah in the space of about 48 hours. Give him back his obscurity and his privacy. The media will move on to something else soon enough. If people are still talking about him six months from now, for reasons other than the debate and his history at reddit, then we could consider restoring the article. Joe the Plumber went on to lasting fame, but most 15-minute-wonders don't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. I mean, I think he's entertaining, but it's obviously a clear WP:BLP1E. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sandeep Garg

He is the author of many books like introductory micro and macro economics class 12th . He has done b.com(hon.) And ca.

Sandeep Garg (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 that is severely undersourced and lacking in WP:RS. Also individual is not notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm unsure if there are more coverage of subject like this one. As it stands now, it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article also reads WP:PROMOTIONAL; such that even if more sources are presented here without any effort to fix the article, it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. Anup [Talk] 16:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (Procedural Close). per A7 by TomStar81 -- (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Zachary "Zach" Rance

Zachary "Zach" Rance (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)

Individual lacks notability and has not achieved anything notable career-wise to merit a Wikipedia article. Having an amount of followers on social media does not constitute reasons for a Wikipedia page. The individual only notable achievement was competing in Big Brother in 2014 and that's not enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• keep. Rance is know by many fans around the world, his merits are valid however, the article needs more work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsae04 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Having fans is no reason to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a fan page and his merits lack notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamswiki5 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I would have speedied this, article mainly a collection of quotes and trivia Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• keep rance have notability, I don't see why he does not have a Wikipedia. plus there is no violation of Wikipedia's rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasin121 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would also suggest redirect to List of Big Brother 16 houseguests (U.S.)#Zach. Also check for sockpuppets since two of the keep comments sounds very similar and have the same writing style. The individual lacks notability besides competing in Big Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamswiki5 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Fitts

Michael Fitts (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)

Reason TulaneU (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Was this meant to be requested for deletion, as there needs to be a viable reason for deletion? Otherwise this will be procedurally closed. However, I have tagged the page for a copyvio, as it is almost a carbon copy of [20]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I have removed the copyvio, stubbed down the article using the previously-copied web page as a source, and revdelled the offending versions. As president of a major university he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Snow Keep the president of a major university will inevitably be notable. Nominator is also the article creator, so unsure what their motivation is here. Now that the copyvio is removed I don't see any reason to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Snow Keep With the copyvio removed the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. The comment above was to question the reasoning for the nomination. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC).

• Keep but watch the page, as someone (I assume University staff) attempted to add another copyvio today: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Jan Koch (footballer, born 1984)

Jan Koch (footballer, born 1984) (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)

Contested PROD (concern was he made a 2. Bundesliga appearance, which is false, link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4). Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Koch has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Apologies, lack of fact checking on my part, I knew Dresden were a big club and must be in a pro league, but I was obviously wrong. fails WP:NFOOTBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Leonie Wood

Leonie Wood (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 meet WP:CREATIVE based on the information here. Online search is not coming up with any independent coverage. January (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - The source used on the page is to a writing profile and is WP:SPS so it cannot be used. I can find coverage that shows she exists, but nothing that talks in-depth about her. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clyde-Green Springs Schools. consensus to follow our usual rule here. If this was a test case, it was not well chosen. Some few elementary schools can be notable, but there needs to be some special reason. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio)

Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio) (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 elementary school should be redirected to school district (Clyde-Green Springs Schools) per norm. An earlier school burned in the late 1800s but this school cannot claim to be historically significant since the site was not used for another school for at least 40 years. The school was built, it's funded, it has a playground, and it has had principals. Nothing showing notability there. The only item of interest is the provision of Chromebooks to the students, and I don't see that as being sufficient for notability. Meters (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The article creator made this comment when creating the article "Do NOT redirect or delete without discussion!!! I made this page as a test to see if people can accept the actual notability of a standalone elementary school article. The 'inherent unnotability' guideline is just a GUIDELINE, not POLICY! Let's see if we can accept articles such as these while still ignoring the guideline and focusing more on the facts." Well, here's your discussion. Meters (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect - Nowhere near enough to sustain an article. All the sources are local, all the referenced facts are mundane. Fails WP:ORG, and obviously fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:WPSCH/AG#N. To top it off, altho not really on point here, it just isn't written very well either. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@ User:John from Idegon "<mocking tone of voice>It just isn't very well written either.</mocking tone of voice>" Are you serious? See WP:NPA. I actually spent a lot of time on this article so that is insulting. I'll have you know that I spent a great deal of time writing my articles on WP when I was into it. I see nothing wrong with the quality of this article aside from its questionable notability. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• You wrote an article about an apparently non-notable elementary school as a test. It's irrelevant whether it is well written. It is up for deletion as a non-notable subject. If you think it should be kept then add your Keep and make your case. Meters (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to the school district article, merging some of the information about the Chromebook program if desired (if article length is a problem, there's some content in the district article that probably needs to be trimmed down to satisfy WP:BLP). Entertaining the article creator's request, I looked for sources for this as if WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES didn't exist at all. I found some (probably trivial, but still...) history about the school during desegregation... no, wait, that's a different Green Springs Elementary School (in Louisa County, Virgnia, and no longer in service). Aaaand then we're pretty much done, except for the requisite routine coverage that doesn't contribute to notability on any local topic, elementary school or otherwise. The local newspaper's Halloween-season light news story suggesting that the school building is haunted by the ghosts of students from the original 19th century school is about the most interesting, but doesn't get within sight of being appropriate for an encyclopedia article. As an aside, the information in the article as it stands is problematic. The 2010 date in the infobox is apparently solely for the most recent building; the school operated under this name at least as far back as the early 1960s (based on this mention of its former principal in the Congressional Record, and, no, that contributes to the notability of neither the school nor the principal). There's almost certainly some elementary school, somewhere, that can sustain an article on its own merits; this is not that case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect of course, to the school district article. Other contributors here have explained perfectly what our usual process is for such school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Kate Marie Davies

Kate Marie Davies (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)

Actress in independent films and web series. There is not the depth of coverage to make her notable per WP:GNG, nor do I see any awards or the like that meet the specific criteria for actors. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The only significant coverage I could find from web searches was an interview in UK Horror Scene, but I could spot no indication that this is a reliable source, so the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete lacks coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Scholars of Muslim World

The Scholars of Muslim World (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)

Possible merge into List of contemporary Muslim scholars of Islam? Otherwise an unreferenced page lacking sufficient content to stand on its own. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This is, frankly, a mess. It's titled like an essay and the contents demonstrate a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia practices and markup. It definitely doesn't warrant a merge to a list about contemporary scholars of Islam, because all three (mostly misspelled) entries in the fragmentary list are scholars of the Islamic Golden Age: Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Jabir ibn Hayyan, and Avicenna. There's no article that would benefit from what content is here (which is honestly just that list of three people), and the title is idiosyncratic enough to be an unlikely search term warranting no redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. very poor for a wikipedia article and serves no purpose to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsae04 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per Squeamish. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. No good purpose will come of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The article really doesn't seem to have a point. We have a list and several categories that cover the same information, rendering this non-article too redundant even for a merge. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Judge Rummy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A Joy Ride

A Joy Ride (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 indication of notability. Contested PROD. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Judge Rummy. Bray was an extremely important and influential early animation studio. The Judge Rummy series of silent cartoon, beginning ~1919, were by all accounts extremely popular. Unfortunately, the Bray cartoons were underappreciated at the time (especially the later ones distributed by Goldwyn, like this one, as opposed to the early ones distributed by Hearst), and there has been no modern monograph on the studio's work. It might be possible to source an article about the 1919-1920 cartoons in the series, but here, we're really hamstrung by the available sources. The target article doesn't have a filmography listing the titles of the Judge Rummy cartoons, but it hopefully will someday. In any case, the series in general is notable (and easily sourced in that sense), so outright deletion is inappropriate here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Judge Rummy. Take out the unsourced plot section and there isn't much left, but I see no reason not redirect, and expand within the Judge Rummy article if sources are found. --Michig (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Coolabahapple: Why? Qwfp (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2016

Qwfp, because i am an idiot ps. have take it from the list, pps. i am open to trouting:)Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Geoffro Cause

Geoffro Cause (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)

Unreferenced nonnotable "jack of all trades" musician. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an unsourced biography of a living person. There is no allegation that, while prolific, this musician is anything more than an ordinary backup musician. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: autobiographical article that fails to demonstrate individual notability and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edward Cornelius Humphrey

Edward Cornelius Humphrey (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)

Delete. The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE as well as WP:GNG. The sources listed are either self-published (Gateway Press, for example) or they make no mention of the subject. This is an apparent genealogical project by a distant relative. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I am the author of the article. The article appears to have been nominated for deletion while I was making additions to the WWII military record of Major Edward Cornelius Humphrey. I've already noted the additions and circumstance on my talk page, but I'll find them again and re-post here.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. This didn't quite fit Speedy. But unfortunately, none of the proposed additions mentioned there will help. The accumulation of minor events does not make for something substantial. Indeed, if someone does have a substantial and notable career, which is not the case here, the addition of minor detail just obscures the notability . DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

DGG( talk )Did you note the three additional awards I added today along with a mention of the source? They are: "As documented in a photostatic copy of his certificate of service (issued at the Separation Center at Camp Blanding, Florida, on February 1, 1946, and signed by Personnel Officer H. S. Mason, Captain AGD), he also received a European African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal ribbon, an American Theatre ribbon, and a World War II Victory Medal (United States) ribbon." It appears that these campaigns should qualify under #4 of the military guidelines for notability. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines say "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" it's not clear from the article what you consider meets this? Your source is also totally unacceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Major campaigns are covered: "He was with the US Army Medical Corps for three and one-half years (1942 -1945), one and one-half years of which were in the campaigns of Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe." Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As for the added campaign medals, they are "being there" awards. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

for example, the US World War II Victory Medal was given to everyone who served in the armed forces during WW2. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not underestimate the importance of "being there," which was a priority objective. Historical fact: WWII Campaign strategies, plans, and personnel locations were secret and were not ordinarily released to the American press. This may be one reason that the American press at the time was only reporting the deaths of American soldiers. Do you not agree? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This man was a mid-ranking officer. Hundreds of thousands of officers served in the Second World War. Millions of privates and NCOs served. What is special about him? @Mitzi.humphrey: Do you think we should have an article on every single one of them? Just the Americans? Who? What is your justification for having an article on this particular individual? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable in the end for stand alone article and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A K Chenoweth

A K Chenoweth (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 really don't think the subject of this classic vanity article is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment that this is probably an autobiography. She's certainly a lot more accomplished than many people who write their own Wikipedia articles (or pay other people to do so). I'm leaning pretty strongly towards delete, as the sources used are either minor publications or only mention her tangentially. If there's some yet-to-be digitalised paper in Northern Ireland that has written a few indepth articles about her I would reconsider, but it seems unlikely. ¡Bozzio! 15:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, added women project to the article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to St Brelade's Church. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

William George Tabb

William George Tabb (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)

Speedy removed with the flaky rationale 'rector of notable churche'. Whatever. I see no claim of notability her, just a vicar doing his job. incidentqlly the article gives off a heavy smell of copyvio. TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to St Brelade's Church, which includes a list of the church's rectors. The church is clearly notable, but notability is not inherited, and I can find very little that even hints at nontrivial coverage of Tabb himself. The most promising book, A Peculiar Occupation, is not suitable as a reliable source because it is not independent (it is written by his nephew). Mentions in other books and in the proceedings of the Société Jersiaise are mostly trivial or routine, local coverage. Regarding the potential copyvio issue, the text of the article largely duplicates this blog post. The article was created on the same day that blog post was published, and available information suggests that they were created by the same person. However, it is my understanding of policy that we would require an OTRS ticket to confirm rights ownership, if we were going to retain the content; based on notability and sourcing concerns, I don't think it's worth going to that trouble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge into St Brelade's Church. I see no harm, and plenty of good, to add a list of rectors, e[specially a long-serving incumbent such as this. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by nominatorThe proposed merge seems an acceptable solution.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete or merge a brief summary -- This should not survive as a free-standing article. He may well have been an admirable clergyman, but nevertheless NN in WP terms. I would discourage retaining a redirect, as that is likely to result in someone reinstating the article as a substantive one, which is not deserved. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge into St Brelade's Church.– J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Staunton (band)

Staunton (band) (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:MUSIC. No sign of notability; the only citation is self-published, and a Google search turned up nothing better. Narky Blert (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like an article for someone's garage band. Not notable... Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. The one source (Squarespace) isn't even appropriate. There's nothing of note here, and it definitely fails Notability (music). Kbabej (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Sources like this and this seem to cover the band very significantly. What do other editors like Kbabej, Cosmic Sans, Coolabahapple think about these? Lourdes 13:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They've played at some venues but I'm not sure that meets notability guidelines. Which is a shame, because I actually looked up their album on Spotify and I thought it was great. If they aren't notable right now, then they will be someday. Even so I don't think these sources fix the problem... Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cosmic Sans, what do you think is the problem with these sources? In other words, why would you say that these source cannot be used to prove that the band qualifies on NMUSIC? Lourdes 16:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Narky Blert and Kbabej. Lourdes 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, they don't qualify for numbers 2-12 of notability:music, but it seems you're positing they have substantial coverage, which falls under number 1 anyway. I googled them, and could only come up with some low level local coverage. I just don't think they are there yet. Kbabej (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Cumberland Times-News looks an OK source, but it's pretty local. I'm an inclusionist, but for me this band doesn't cut it yet. If they in future get wider notice, I will applaud their sucess, and would argue hard for an article to stay. But as of now, no. (I've refrained from writing an article about Jumpin' Bad, damgud local band round my way with one member who rightly has his own Wiki article (couple of #1 singles) - but that band was in no way notable, it's not mentioned in his article, and I'm not going to add it.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for the comments. Understandable. Lourdes 01:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per comments of editors above on the sources I've posted, and based on the subsequent interpretation of notability. Lourdes 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A Thousand and One Lives

A Thousand and One Lives (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 and promotional with a clear COI. The COI extends heavily into the article on the artist himself and also another painting article which is also currently in AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Pacquiao Hearted Fist) Peter Rehse (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC):

• Delete Non-notable and, incidentally, ghastly painting.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I appreciate the art of using blood and hair to symbolise the immortality of the teachers' DNA. But significant coverage is missing here, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Closing in favor of a renomination of individual or small groups of articles that are closely related. —SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Kaura clan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kaura clan
• Articles for deletion/Kaura clan (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Kaura clan (3rd nomination)

Kaura clan (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)

All the pages listed below belong to Category:Jat clans, or its subcategories. All these pages lack the very basic notability guidelines. Fail WP:GNG. They must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles:

Attri clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bains clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Balhara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Birring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chhina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dantusliya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dahiya (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Davgotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dudhra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gill clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hundet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kalyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Katewa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Manda clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pediwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sahu clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sandhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanghania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sehdev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sheoran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dagur clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Daral clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jatrana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Khatri clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sehrawat (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shokeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Binda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dhaka clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jajra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jyani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saharan clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seegar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chandral clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Langrial clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Punyal clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rachyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ranyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rupyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above listed articles hardy have any references or citations. Most of them don't have any and the remainder sustain with one or two. There are many other articles in the above mentioned category which need to be AfDed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Please, no. While grouped deletion discussions are sometimes handy, this is over the top. There is no way that I can check for sources for this lot in the usual seven-day period that is allowed at AfD. Bear in mind also that some of these probably can be redirected and some probably can be converted into surname lists, we're looking at an extremely messy discussion. Bin this filing and nominate, say, 3 or 4 per week. That's more than enough to deal with. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: It might be more work in the short term, but please withdraw this and nominate the articles separately, as Sitush suggests, at a slower rate. There is no WP:DEADLINE. A discussion this large is going to go exactly nowhere. Vanamonde (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Gurmehar Grewal

Gurmehar Grewal (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)

Delete: Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. The competition win is enough to prevent speedy deletion for lack of indication of significance, but there is nowhere near enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete grossly undersourced BLP, no RSes in sight - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lack of WP:RS. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  08:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Betagarri

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Betagarri
• (2nd nomination)

Betagarri (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 claim to notability. Only three albums listed at AllMusic and none have reviews: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/betagarri-mn0001373475/discography Nothing in the first 50 hits on Google supports notability. And only self-published sources on their article on the Spanish project.

Previous AfD was a decade ago when criteria was vastly different than today. One comment then was that they are very famous in Basque Country, yet no sources exist to support that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See below for source examples. Sources in addition to those listed below are also available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  El Correo (in Spanish)

  Diario de Navarra (in Spanish)

  Diario de Navarra (in Spanish)

  Diario de Navarra (in Spanish)

http://www.elcorreo.com/vizcaya/v/20130425/duranguesado/betagarri-lidera-programa-musical-20130425.html simply mentions the band as performing twice, but the article is about the festival.

http://www.diariodenavarra.es/noticias/navarra/zona_norte_oriental/2013/07/20/betagarri_lleva_ska_hasta_sanguesa_124609_1010.html The article is about "music school Juan Francés de Iribarren"

http://www.diariovasco.com/v/20140507/cultura/betagarri-celebra-veinte-anos-20140507.html Good article, but it's under the "more news" section.

http://www.diariovasco.com/v/20130111/alto-deba/betagarri-celebra-aniversario-inundando-20130111.html Another good article.

The real problem I have is that after 20 year, we have two good refs, two questionable sources and a lot of doubt as to the notability of the group. I was coming to see if I should revoke my nomination. I'm not convinced that I should. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep: Nomination withdrawn per discussion. (non-admin closure) Otr500 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China

Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China (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)

Article has been tagged a long time (since 2011) as having no source or references. A search brought up only the Wikipedia article. There is no way to check article for WP:OR, copy right issues, or anything. Otr500 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sources mainly in Mandarin, I suggest that you may search in Mandarin "中華民國四階段論" instead of English. [21].- Earth Saver _(talk) at 16:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, [22] is also an example for books in English which introduces this theory. - Earth Saver _(talk) at 16:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Obviously, there are one Chinese version Wikipedia article with multiple citations and a Japanese version of a related article which suggests it's less likely to be an "original research". Anyway, 5 reliable sources, including the one from Earth Saver, has been added to this article while the content has been reviewed and modified as well. -- Wildcursive (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: The first reference used does support, although reworded slightly, the title with "While receiving the delegates of the Formosa Foundation of the United States, President Chen Shui-bian indicates that the four stages of the Republic of China's evolution refer to: the Republic of China as established in China; the Republic of China is transferred from China to Taiwan; the Republic of China on Taiwan during former President Lee Teng-hui's term; and "the Republic of China is Taiwan" after the Democratic Progressive Party became the ruling party in 2000.". The second reference supports the use of the name in the title. The third reference specifically mentions "Chen reiterated his two theories of the ROC's history", specifically the Four States' theory, that is different from the article title but also includes "The nation entered the fourth stage", and also mentions "Chen outlined his second theory, the "Three Stages" theory". The second to last reference #4, is a book, with no page number, and does not support anything in the article. The last reference #5 is a book, Taiwan Country Study Guide: Strategic Information and Developments, with no page number, and does not support anything in the article.

I will concede there is enough to support the title per Wikipedia:Notability, although there is certainly and without a doubt original research, with content not supported by references, some evidently used to give the appearance of having a source, and tags dated from 2009, this does not affect notability.

This article is a glorified stub, prematurely advanced to "start class". I am going to remove the material not supported by references, remove the tags, and reassess the article as "stub class". Please note that reintroduction of the material, by reversion or readdition, without corroborating source, is against policy per WP:BURDEN. I will then withdraw the AFD nomination. Otr500 (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. adequate consensus that the coverage is not sufficient DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman
• Articles for deletion/Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman (2nd nomination)

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman (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:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - this article follows WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC correctly, as it is accompanied by direct and reliable sources, as well as having additional chart information accredited to its name; it charted somewhere. So revoking this nomination of deletion would be appreciated. Thank you.

Infopage100 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Indeed, follows WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC correctly. plenty of good sources. chart info etc. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: the problem is iTunes and Beatport are not recognised charts, and being available on Amazon and YouTube isn't really proof of anything apart from existence. So once you take out all those references and all the blogs, what you're left with is a song that just scraped into a secondary chart in Belgium. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• leaning keep The article needs serious paring down (really, a lot of those references are rubbish), but that's actually an entry in a Belgian national chart that's good enough for WP:NMUSIC - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Article quality and article notability are two different things. Either than that I agree with you Keep !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok. There are 109 references. A lot of those references are Youtube links. Yet those YouTube links are only found beside remixes by the duo, which really don't have any significance to them. The rest of the links are good musical websites, found under the duo's music career, which are merely accompanied by a few iTunes and Beatport links; as those iTunes and Beatport links play a role of proof for the release itself. A USA Today article usually won't tell you precisely when the single, EP, album, etc. was released, whereas an outlet for the release is more likely to display that information, along with record label and record label catalogue info as well.

Infopage100 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Bubbling under, the chart for those not on the chart. Not good enough. This is a bloated mess of refspam and promotion and needs to go. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have now corrected the false claim of charting in the discography. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• leaning delete - Duffbeerforme points out that they made the lower reaches of the bubbling under charts, not the main charts. Given the paucity of WP:NMUSIC otherwise, this is not enough for me - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Although there are 109 citations, I couldn't find one good citation which would offer indepth coverage. The band definitely fails GNG. (In fact the article content is for the most part "in x year they released y" repeating all over). The charting is actually a bubbling under chart which doesn't really pass NMUSIC. What pushes this towards a delete is that there is little to no reliable secondary coverage to base an article on per WP:WHYN. I also consider this a WP:TOOSOON case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: this is my problem with the article, the vast majority of citations are simply to prove the existence of each single or remix. There's almost nothing to prove that any of these records are notable. Even the better sources don't really tell you very much – for example, their guest mix on BBC Radio 1 isn't that special: DJs from all over the world have contributed guest mixes on Radio 1 over the years, so the mix itself wasn't notable. And when you look at the track listing, six of the seven records they played were their own remixes, so in fact it was just a good form of self-publicity. When it comes down to it, the notability rests on a song that just scraped into the lower reaches of a secondary chart in Belgium, and little else. Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I thought the artist did chart officially, but I guess not. Though on Steve Angello's discog page it shows that the song, "Payback" with Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman charted on an official Belgium chart. So I think that page should be corrected as well.

To know what I'm talking about, see the page here: Steve Angello discography.

Infopage100 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians:

@Mburrell:, @Nikthestunned:, @XPanettaa:, @TheMagnificentist:, @Earflaps:, and anybody else, I need your help. This may not be an article that I have created, but it is an article that I really enjoy. When this article felt like a stub, I heavily updated it, creating most of its tables, and adding most of its 109 references; in so many words, I must admit that the article was poorly written. So don't let my strenuous effort die in vain. It would be a pain to see that be so; help out instead. If you can, pay forth a visit to the aforementioned article, and subsequently update it. Please. Thank you.

Infopage100 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - While there is some coverage in notable media, none of that coverage is in any way significant, consisting almost entirely of song announcements and passing mentions (basically the musician equivalent of press releases). 'Bubbling under' chart is not enough to establish notability. Nikthestunned 11:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - These references are notable, so the page should stay a little while longer:

*http://edmspain.es/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-yves-v-daylight/

*http://edmidentity.com/2016/05/24/yves-v-daylight/

*http://daily-beat.com/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-x-steve-angello-payback-original-mix/

*http://www.musictimes.com/articles/57035/20151204/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-label-buce-records-single-running.htm

*https://ventsmagazine.com/2016/05/23/yves-v-dimitri-vangelis-wyman-bring-daylight%e2%80%8f/

Infopage100 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I also added this ref.

http://weraveyou.com/2016/04/21/steve-angello-dimitri-vangelis-wymans-anthem-payback-two-years-old/ Infopage100 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Infopage100, firstly, you have already voted so your second "keep" vote should be struck. Secondly, you say the references are notable, but most of them really aren't – Weraveyou and EDM Spain are blogs, while Daily Beat describes itself as a "global youth media company", whatever that means. EDM Identity is a company that promotes artists so its reviews may not be impartial. And lastly, all the references say are basically "Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman have released this record"... that isn't evidence of why they or the record are notable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

TripHobo

TripHobo (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 company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor in terms of coverage they provide. No depth coverage by independent media for its notability but script given to large media group. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria for companies. Once in a lifetime coverage in popular media is not enough to be part of its significance. or being released as press or promotional exercises. Light2021 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete  Being a startup company in the news may satisfy WP:GNG, but Wikipedia is not interested in a company with potential.  We have no deadline, so we can wait.  If this company pans out, it will continue to attract attention from reliable sources.  Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  Articles about companies require neutral coverage, that is exactly what WP:PROMO says, and this means that we should include coverage of why a company's products are attractive to the rest of the world.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowball case. Company indisputably notable; no valid reason offered for nomination. (non-admin closure) Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Delivery Hero

Delivery Hero (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 company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor in terms of coverage they provide. No depth coverage by independent media for its notability but script given to large media group. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria for companies. Once in a lifetime coverage in popular media is not enough to be part of its significance. or being released as press or promotional exercises. Light2021 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• This nomination is word for word identical to one made 7 minutes later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripHobo.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep They are not a random start-up company, with 2,000 employees and ~200 mio Euro revenue they are very substantial. They are very established in Germany and are basically in a duopoly with the only other large competitor (Lieferando/Takeaway.com) in the area of online-fast-food delivery ordering-services (which is huge in Germany). There is plenty of coverage (which goes beyond routine news blurps and press releases) of the company and its brands (among others Pizza.de and Lieferheld) in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A few selected examples In German:

• Pizza.de and Lieferheld annoy Delivery services (long in-depth article about how Pizza.de, and its competitor cause massive problems for the actual food producers in the Wirtschaftswoche)
• Do delivery-services bite the hand which feed them? another Wirtschaftwoche long in-depth article about the delivery service situation in Germany, prominently featuring pizza.de as largest competitor in Germany for an entire page of the 3 page report
• War of the pizza portals (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) another long in-depth article about the company and its business model
• Delivery Hero, the 3 billion start-up (Handelsblatt) another long in-depth article about the company and its business model
• Plenty of articles in basically every German news outlet about their planned stock market entry: Berlin Delivery Hero prepares for stock market entry (Berliner Morgenpost), Delivery Hero continues with stock market entry (n-tv, also calls them "worlds largest online delivery order platform")
• Plenty of coverage for their financial relations with Rocket Internet; Large Investment into Delivery Hero (welt.de), Rocket Internet invests 500 mio in Delivery Hero (Süddeutsche Zeitung), Delivery Hero/Rocket Internet invests in food delivery services (Spiegel online) and others in basically every major news outlet
• Coverage of aqusitions: Delivery Hero swallows Pizza.de (Süddeutsche Zeitung), Delivery Hero swallows competitor (Spiegel online), Delivery Hero buys Turkish competitor (Handelsblatt) and others in basically every major news outlet
• Various coverage of legal problems: (Police raid at Delivery Hero (spiegel online), and entire article in the print magazine: Cyberwar of the pizza delivery men in Der Spiegel and others in basically every major news outlet

And this is just the RS situation in Germany. Since have expanded greatly worldwide, there are probably much more reliable souces about them in other media in other countries. The article itself could obviously improved, but the company clearly passes the notability guidelines. I therefore think the article should definitely stay. Dead Mary (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards. As nominated the reasons, such companies are able to garner enough PR at once for their own promotions. After-all all the mention agencies are commercial in nature as well. Once in a lifetime coverage does not harm anybody. By this logic Wikipedia will end and become directory for such companies which somehow succeeded in publishing themselves in popular media. There are similar incident in other area of world as well, where such heavy funded companies are making news merely giving script to media. Cashkaro.com, Delhivery, Yourstory and others. Numbers of employee or customers does not make any company wikipedia notable. It may have been covered by major media. But Depth of coverage is highly questionable. Light2021 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this company is not even remotely comparable to the cases you listed. Didn't you see the sources I posted? This company gets covered far beyond routine coverage and PR press releases you mentioned. This company is not a fresh start-up from yesterday who did a small media uproar and then faltered. It is now years old and a giant in this completely new market in Germany. The introduction of online delivery service portals in Germany had a very huge impact and did alter the market and food delivery business drastically with major implications for literally every Pizza and fast-food outlet in Germany. As result there are tons of in-depth articles and coverages in German RS - major general newspapers as well as business newspapers - which did analyze the market and this company (which controls about 75% of the market in Germany) very critically. I literally posted a number of examples of lengthy and critically articles about this company and its business above here. Its unfortunately German, but even a brief scanning would reveal it is substantial and can be verified by Google translate. And again, this is only the situation in Germany, they are dominating this market in other countries too. Dead Mary (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: per significant coverage listed above by Dead Mary. As for "Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards", actually, it does. The relevant policy is WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This company has received this type of coverage, as evidenced above, and it therefore meets our notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources listed by Dead Mary meet WP:CORPDEPTH, especially considering sources from major outlets like the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Der Spiegel website. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep  Sources shown.  No WP:NOT problems with the article have been identified, because this is a cookie cutter nomination that shows no verifiable evidence of having looked at the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

EatOye

EatOye (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 company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor in terms of coverage they provide. No depth coverage by independent media for its notability but script given to large media group. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria for companies. Once in a lifetime coverage in popular media is not enough to be part of its significance. or being released as press or promotional exercises. Light2021 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of English-language Pakistani news sources about this company that cover this in-depth, without having to apply WP:NEXIST to non-English Pakistani sources. The Business Recorder,[23], [24] [25] [26] [27] The Express Tribune, [28] [29], [30] The News International, [31] The Nation, [32], and Dawn. [33], [34], [35] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards. As nominated the reasons, such companies are able to garner enough PR at once for their own promotions. After-all all the mention agencies are commercial in nature as well. Once in a lifetime coverage does not harm anybody. By this logic Wikipedia will end and become directory for such companies which somehow succeeded in publishing themselves in popular media. Light2021 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: per significant coverage listed above by Patar Knight. As for "Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards", actually, it does. The relevant policy is WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This company has received this type of coverage, as evidenced above, and it therefore meets our notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I am satisfied with the sources provided by Patar Knight. WP:V is available, therefore it should be kept. Mar4d (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

TravelKhana

TravelKhana (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 company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor in terms of coverage they provide. No depth coverage by independent media for its notability but script given to large media group. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria for companies. Once in a lifetime coverage in popular media is not enough to be part of its significance. or being released as press or promotional exercises. Light2021 (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Looking at English-language Indian sources only, without needing to invoke WP:NEXIST for non-English sources, it seems that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. The Economic Times,[36] [37] [38] The Hindu, [39] [40] The Deccan Herald [41] Daily News and Analysis [42], The New Indian Express [43] and India.com [44] have all run significant coverage of this company that confirms among other things, that this company is the e-catering contracted by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards. As nominated the reasons, such companies are able to garner enough PR at once for their own promotions. After-all all the mention agencies are commercial in nature as well. Once in a lifetime coverage does not harm anybody. By this logic Wikipedia will end and become directory for such companies which somehow succeeded in publishing themselves in popular media. Light2021 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: per significant coverage listed above by Patar Knight. As for "Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards", actually, it does. The relevant policy is WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This company has received this type of coverage, as evidenced above, and it therefore meets our notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: "Once in a lifetime coverage" is not a recognised criterion for deletion, and if something analogous to ONEEVENT (for people) is meant, then it does not apply here, with frequent coverage in the Indian press:

• Hindustan Times 31 May 2014, 6 August 2014, 20 February 2016
• Economic Times 28 August 2014, 3 August 2015, 14 January 2016, 2 March 2016
• The Hindu 3 July 2016, 13 August 2016

Once in the lifetime of a mayfly, maybe: Noyster (talk), 10:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Anila Ali

Anila Ali (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)

Delete. WP:BLP of a person with very little substantive or properly sourced evidence of notability. Nothing claimed here constitutes an actual claim of notability: being a candidate for election to the state assembly or to her hometown city council does not pass WP:NPOL; writing books is not a notability freebie if your source for that is the publication details of the books rather than RS coverage about the books; being a delegate to a political party convention does not make a person notable; and on and so forth. And of the 19 sources here, only one of them is actually a real piece of reliable source coverage about her, and it's local coverage in the context of starting a Facebook group. All of the other 18 references are DOA for one reason or another: references #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18 and 19 are primary sources that cannot support notability at all; #7, 9, 10 and 13 are just letters to the editor in the newspaper; #11 and 12 just glancingly mention her name as a convention delegate; #16 just briefly quotes her giving soundbite in an article that isn't about her; and #15 and 17 are dead links whose content is unverifiable. And there are a lot of claims in here that remain entirely unsourced, as well. As always, Wikipedia is not a free campaign brochure platform for aspiring politicians -- but nothing here is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG or to play the "preexisting notability for other things before running for office" card. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, article needs some refinements and better laid out sources here and there etc. Still Anila Ali is notable for various things. She is also the founder of the American Muslim Women’s Empowerment Council, an organization which works to have women from Muslim backgrounds placed into positions within the law-enforcement and justice systems. That's just a small slice from the pie of this Irvine, California resident. Her involvement in various organizations is not only commendable, she is notable for this as well. She is I believe the author of two published books. Karl Twist (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Being the founder of an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that fact (and even if the organization did have an article, per WP:NOTINHERITED that fact still wouldn't give her an automatic notability freebie if the sourcing about her was still as bad as what's been shown here.) Writing books is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that fact. As I've already explained, there's only one source present in this article that counts as a reliable one at all, and it's a local news article about her starting a Facebook group. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, though could do with pruning to remove puffery and unsourced material. Meets WP:GNG as has significant coverage from India-West [45], the Orange County Register [46] and the Clarion Project [47]. Qwfp (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A candidate in a city council election would be expected to garner coverage in her local media. Covering local politics is local media's job, so all candidates for city council seats always garner local coverage — and accordingly, such coverage is routine and does not confer passage of WP:GNG for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The OC Register link has already been addressed above; it's covering her only in the context of launching a Facebook group, which is not an encyclopedic claim of notability. India West is a local community newspaper covering her announcement of her city council candidacy, which is not an encyclopedic claim of notability. And the Clarion Project is not media, but an advocacy group — so content it publishes to its website does not count toward passage of GNG at all. When you can start showing coverage in The New York Times or the Washington Post (and that means coverage about her in the news section, not letters she wrote to the editors), then GNG will come into play — but the media coverage that's been shown here is local and routine, not GNG-passing. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG does not even contain the word 'local'. WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events), while this is the biography of a person who is notable for more than just her role in one event, whether that event is an election or the launching or a Facebook page—hang on, that's two events for a start—I don't see how you can argue that the coverage is only in the context of an election on the one hand, while also dismissing another source for covering her in the context of the launch of a Facebook page, i.e. something entirely different. In any case, India-West is no more 'local' than the Los Angeles Times, while the Orange County Register has a daily circulation of over 250,000 and is 'local' to Orange County, California, the sixth-most populous county in the US with a population of over 3 million, more than many countries. Qwfp (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The election is an event, so localized coverage of it does fall under WP:ROUTINE — and candidates involved in it do not inherit notability from the event. If localized coverage of local elections in local media that would be expected to be covering that election counted toward meeting WP:GNG in and of itself, then we would have to keep an article about every single candidate in any election at all — but our notability standards for political candidates are purposely designed to keep Wikipedia from devolving into a public relations repository of campaign brochures, by limiting the notability of political candidates to those who can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm (i.e. by already having preexisting notability for other things, or by generating far more than the merely expected level of campaign coverage.)

But starting a Facebook group does not satisfy either of those conditions — it doesn't show preexisting notability, because it's not a notability-conferring event at all, and the rule is not that a candidate gets over the "more notable than the norm for a candidate" hump the moment you can show that one piece of media coverage has existed about her outside of the election context. The "preexisting notability" claim has to fully satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion all by itself, such that the article could still have existed on that basis even if the person hadn't run as an election candidate at all — but one piece of media coverage about starting a Facebook group would not have gotten her into Wikipedia by itself, because the claim itself passes none of Wikipedia's SNGs and the depth of coverage doesn't satisfy GNG.

And it doesn't matter how big a newspaper's local coverage area happens to be, either — if a class of topic is subject to the "more than just local coverage" test, as unelected candidates for office are, then what matters is not the size of a media outlet's distribution or circulation range, but its physical location in relation to the topic and her notability claim. Even The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times could not singlehandedly GNG an unelected city council candidate in their own local coverage areas just because they're more widely read than the Sandusky Register or the Bozeman Daily Chronicle — the context in which that coverage is being given still has a bearing on whether it assists notability or not. Even in New York City, an unelected candidate for New York City Council still wouldn't get an automatic GNG pass just because the routine local election coverage of that election happened to be in The New York Times, because the claim itself isn't one that satisfies our inclusion rules. If the election-related coverage is in a media outlet that would be routinely expected to cover that election, because the election is taking place in that media outlet's own primary local coverage area, then that coverage still does not go toward GNG regardless of whether the media outlet has a daily circulation of 250,000, 30 million or just ten — the place from which the coverage is originating has to be geographically non-local before it can speak to "more notable than usual for a city council candidate", and a newspaper to which that city council election is local news does not get a special dispensation just because it happens to have a larger local readership than other newspapers and/or some non-local readership too. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: it was hard to see through the flurry of promotionality on the article, so I gave a go at de-puffing it. I'm on the fence about this AFD. I feel like I've never seen so much WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE of someone without very much corresponding WP:SIGCOV. She certainly gets mentioned a lot, but she doesn't seem to be the focus of much coverage. The OC Register piece is good, but it's local, and I can't find a second piece of equal value. Right now I'm leaning delete, but I'll watch this page to see how the discussion evolves. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete minor writer and activist who is good at self-promotion but lacks any indepth coverage. Her political career is so far below the level of notable it is laughably abyssmal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as certainly not convincingly notable as an author, and then there's nothing actually substantial as a political activist, this article itself then suggests hints at job listing-like information, which then amounts to PR. The concerns here outweigh any chances that this may somehow be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - GNG met. Article could use clean up, improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

GNG met how, exactly, if all we have for GNGable sourcing is one local newspaper article about her starting a Facebook group? Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - GNG met. Article could be cleaned up and referencing can be improved, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.40.94 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

GNG met how, exactly, if all we have for GNGable sourcing is one local newspaper article about her starting a Facebook group? Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails GNG. Article appears to be highly promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete This is someone who is at best only locally known. More importantly, a lot of the coverage is routine local coverage in the context of an election candidate. We tend to discount these for WP:POLOUTCOMES, as otherwise every single minor political candidate will become notable. The subject did not win any post and neither is there any other significant coverage in a non-local media. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ali is good at PR and certainly very busy supporting good causes but that doesn't make her notable just yet. Had a go at removing the worst puffery but boy, there's a lot. Sources don't always support what they are supposed to support either. (I'm very much reminded of the Mandy Sanghera article, also up for deletion, that had very similar problems). Yintan  09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, I have had a look at the usual places that we look and there is enough to satisfy the notability aspect of this person to be in Wikipedia. So I stand by my Keep vote! In saying that, there are much better references that can be used. So I ask that the creator of this article please look around for better refs, I will do a couple but I'm too busy to be bogged down here. So over to the creator and contributor. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, you cannot just assert that sufficient sourcing exists to get her over GNG. You have to demonstrate that sufficient sourcing exists to get her over GNG, by actually showing the actual results of your work. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: I commented above, but had not !voted yet. Although I was leaning delete, I was open to reliable sources being brought forward in this discussion to establish notability. That has not happened, so I think the article should be deleted. We need WP:SIGCOV, and what we have is a large collection of passing and trivial mentions. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  www.ocregister.com/articles/muslim-649192-muslims-ali.html is an in-depth article, as is the IndiaWest article.  There seems to be a concern that this topic is running for office in November of this year, so the article should be deleted, but the article was created in April 2014.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• The IndiaWest article doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Apart from being spammy and advertising itself as the "Best Indian newspaper in print and online", I don't see any evidence of a journalistic oversight. For all purpose that is a WP:SPS and cannot be used for GNG. The other source is about the interview in context of a Facebook page which we already looked at. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have reviewed your assertions and find them to be submitted without relevant evidence, i.e., these are proofs by assertion.  Nor are you an expert.  The India West article has a byline of "India West Staff".  The generalized aspect of the aspersions you have cast is dismissed by reading our article, India West.  I am aware that The Orange County Register has been declared a reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard.  I have searched for the word "interview" above, and your claim that the OC Register piece is an "interview" is without precedent in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• The generalized aspect of the aspersions you have cast is dismissed by reading our article, India West. Our article is entirely sourced to India West's website and not to any reliable secondary third-party sources. As for the byline, most CMS (used by these websites) have a default byline which is automatically inserted. I am not an expert but I do have prior experience in dealing with media and promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Again: regardless of any quibbles about whether India West is a reliable source or not, it's a local media outlet in her own local area, which is covering her only in the context of announcing her candidacy for a city council seat. This is the kind of election coverage that is routinely expected to exist — all candidates in all elections always get some — so it does not assist GNG. And the OC Register, again, is also a local paper, covering her only in the context of starting a Facebook group, which again is not a noteworthy achievement that gets somebody into an encyclopedia (since nothing stops anybody from starting a Facebook group and then maybe getting a human interest piece in the local newspaper for it.) GNG is not magically passed the moment two pieces of media coverage exist, without regard to the context in which that coverage came to exist — the coverage still has to be about her doing something that would constitute a reason why she might belong in an encyclopedia. If two pieces of media coverage were automatically enough to pass GNG regardless of what that coverage were being given for, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever became president of the parent-teacher association at her kids' elementary school. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• GNG doesn't exclude "local" sources, rather that is an element found in WP:CORPORATION.  This topic is not a corporation. 

  GNG doesn't discount evidence "expected" to exist; rather, it states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

  GNG doesn't exclude "routine" coverage. 

  GNG does not require that there be "reasons" for a topic to have an encyclopedia article.  WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• The reason local sources are not used for GNG is because of our policy WP:NOT. As someone said, "If we used my small town newspaper for GNG purposes my dog would be notable for having chewed up all the gardens in the neighborhood every year.". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• AFD most certainly does have a standing consensus that purely local coverage in a purely local-interest context, such as announcing one's candidacy for a city council seat, does not assist passage of GNG. If it did, we would have to keep articles about presidents of PTAs, school board trustees, teenagers who had human interest pieces written about them in the local Pennysaver because they tried out for their high school football team despite having only nine toes, librarians, still-unsigned and non-recording winners of local "battle of the bands" competitions, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one morning. An article does not become earned until the coverage demonstrates a substantive reason why her notability has expanded significantly beyond the purely local — which "candidate for a city council seat" and "started a Facebook group" do not. GNG is not automatically passed the moment any coverage exists at all — passage of GNG most certainly does depend on variables like context, volume and geographic range. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete mainly on the basis of the ridiculous COI editing and puffery. This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO; the article has no less than eight (8) photos with various dignitaries, such as "Anila Ali with President Clinton and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom" etc. Only a person close to the subject would have stuffed the article with so much puffery. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform for self-promotion. Even if the subject were notable (of which I'm not convinced), TNT would have applied as the article would need to be completely rewritten. If a volunteer editor comes along and wants to create an NPOV article, all the power to the. But there's not need to keep promotionalism in the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jordan Copp

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jordan Copp

Jordan Copp (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)

Just about squeezes through WP:NFOOTBALL due to one sub appearance in the FL Trophy 4 years ago, but has spent most of the time since playing well into non league. No sign of WP:GNG JohnTombs48 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - one substitute appearance in a minor cup game a number of years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish, Andrei Nițu, Daniel Oliveira Costa and Samuel Huber amongst others. GiantSnowman 18:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - in total agreement with the argument made by GS Spiderone 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Per GS, a fifteen minute substitute appearance six years ago for a technical NFOOTY pass is nowhere near enough to override GNG. Player is currently two tiers below the level required by NFOOTY and there is clear precedent for deletion in similar cases where there is no clear GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - player passes WP:NFOOTY with his appearance for Plymouth. Guidelines and notifications are there for a reason, if not where is the line drawn and does it keep getting extended from 15 minutes to 16, to 17 to one full 90 minutes? If not, WP:NFOOTY needs an overhaul. --Jimbo^[online] 16:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The line is drawn when it is obvious that the player fails GNG. NFOOTY is quite clear that players who have met the FPL criterion will "generally be considered notable", not that they are in all circumstances and the examples noted above are clear indication, if needed, that GNG trumps the subject-specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The majority of League One & Two footballers fail WP:GNG. Outside of match reports and WP:ROUTINE coverage, the vast majority would fail WP:GNG but are saved because they play in the lower reaches and pass WP:FOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're trying to say, you seem to be acknowledging this player fails GNG. If you think there are non-notable people with articles out there then you should feel free to nominate them. Fenix down (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes i agree but he is not really a league 2 player because he has never played in league 2! a sub appearance in a minor cup 5 years ago should not be enough for WP:NFOOTY in my opinion. Use WP:COMMONSENSE. He played as a substitute one Football league trophy game 5 years ago for a league 2 team that at the time had almost been liquidated and had barely any senior players. He was released 4 years ago and has spent most of that time playing at level 7 and below, and he is now in his mid-twenties and playing well into the non league system. I don't see how he needs an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - whilst there are a number of references listed none of them are dealing with the subject to a significant degree. Eldumpo (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable footballer. Without coverage no reason to have an article on a non-notable player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

John Thanos

John Thanos (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 killer fails WP:CRIMINAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is tough. I agree that at first glance he fails that guideline, so notability could come via the GNG. There's some book hits--but this isn't much (this book lists all criminals from the area, it seems, and it's sensationalist), this is just a statistic and this just a mention, but this adds an interesting little tidbit (he wanted to be taped while dying). In the news section, this is local but lengthy, this is just a brief mention, as is this. This mentions him in a noteworthy manner (it's an opinion piece by O'Malley, then governor of Maryland), and this confirms a measure of noteworthiness--that he was the first in Maryland to be executed since 1961. In all, I think he should squeak by. Weak keep. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG per Drmies post. Worst case, redirect to Capital_punishment_in_Maryland#Post-Gregg_executions. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. The article needs improvements but article quality is not part of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WB21

WB21 (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)

See parallel nomination of CEO at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gastauer; created by same group of editors; like that article, this one has promotional pressure and sources are a mix of SPS-driven hype or articles mostly from Germany suggesting bad things. Not enough to build a decent WP article at this time and if/when we do, it may look very different from this article when it was created (oy). WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete as it stands when sources include Bitcoin blogs ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - For the same reasons I presented in nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gastauer for deletion. Company only has references to contributor platform articles which are WP:SPS and some are getting pulled due to publications not being able to verify its claims. Regardless if they are using Wikipedia as a promotional platform or to attempt to gain the system, either one is unacceptable in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Not !voting at this time, but below are a few sources that are not presently in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• The Wall Street Journal
• Entrepreneur
• The Huffington Post (WP:NEWSBLOG)

The Entrepreneur and Huffington Post pieces are by contributors, not journalists, and there is no evidence they've gone through any fact-checking process. Fin3999 (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per TNT if nothing else. It's...an entire article about the absence of reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- non notable and "hoax-like" sounding. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per DEL7. The sources are not good enough to verify information. I also quite curious about the fact that the company is a Singapore startup and yet there was absolute silence from the Singapore media regarding this company. Every company tends to get a lot of coverage here in SG, so it is surprising that this one didn't. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Willie Cullinane

Willie Cullinane (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)

Delete: no claim at all to notability, which cannot be derived solely from victimhood. Quis separabit? 07:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This is yet another of those IRA-related NN bios. They're partisan in nature and not well-cited, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG (no indication of SIGCOV). Also issues with WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E. Guliolopez (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- The Irish War of Independence was a brutal affair. I do not think we can have an article on every incident of conflict between the forces of the Crown and the Nationalists, even where it resulted in deaths. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable for stand alone article or stub. Just one of many. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  09:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus–Montenegro relations

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Montenegro relations
• Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Montenegro relations (2nd nomination)

Cyprus–Montenegro relations (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:GNG. previously deleted by strong consensus. trade is very small. no resident ambassadors , no evidence of bilateral agreements. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete There's nothing to discuss except where the embassies are and the subject isn't notable. I've nominated the page for speedy under WP:G4. If that doesn't go through this discussion will. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've had to decline the G4 deletion request, the other AfD is seven years old and this article differs significantly from the previously deleted version. The 2009 version just contained the dates of official recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations, this one includes other material as well. Hut 8.5 21:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seosamh Ó Dónalláin

Seosamh Ó Dónalláin (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)

Delete: fails notability in every imaginable way. Kind of belongs at legacy.com Quis separabit? 07:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Subject isn't notable and the article contains an unsourced quotation, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete No showing of notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG (no indication of SIGCOV). Also issues with WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E. Guliolopez (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- Another NN incident of the Irish War of Independence. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halo (series).  Sandstein  08:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Halo 6

Halo 6 (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:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Clearly WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Game hasn't been announced yet. There is literally nothing to write about. Obviously 343 Industries is developing a new Halo game since the development studio was formed to do just that, however that doesn't mean an article is needed as of yet. Halo 6 has no coverage and we know nothing about it. Notability is not inherited and Halo 6 is not yet independently notable. The1337gamer (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect - per WP:TOOSOON. A likely product, but has not been announced yet. Cover any speculation or vague comments about it at a dedicated section at the series article until its announced and has plenty of coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Halo (series). No Halo 6 to speak of at this point beyond speculation. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sachio Ashida

Sachio Ashida (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 martial artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete My search found insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and simply being an Olympic coach does not meet any notability criteria that I'm aware of. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Holes (Pint Shot Riot song)

Holes (Pint Shot Riot song) (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 single by low-profile indie band that fails WP:NSONG on every level. The only claim it makes is charting on the UK Indie Chart, but that's an industry listing that doesn't meet our criteria (and it made it nowhere near to the actual singles chart). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punches, Kicks, Trenches & Swords. KaisaL (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as not independently notable with the needed substance for a convincing article, which is not surprising given it's common with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NSONG, hasn't charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Gastauer

Michael Gastauer (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)

Relevant discussion at Talk:Michael Gastauer and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Gastauer about this subject. After looking at the information over the last day, subject is not notable and fails WP:GNG. References from the U.S show all positive press and claim his notability as being a billionaire in charge of a fast growing financial company which also has a Wikipedia page WB21. German sources have published articles stating the U.S. sources have been fact checked and nothing stated (such as his network or the sale of a previous company) check out. It does show he was potentially involved in criminal and civil proceedings related to that company but nothing that would amount to be notable for it. One publication, Forbes, pulled its articles on him today. Other sources such as the Business Insider, Business.com, and Huffington Post all appear to be contributor generated without editorial oversight which essentially qualify them as WP:SPS. There are several accounts that have been blocked associated with editing the article and there will potentially be WP:SPA accounts showing up here to vote, just FYI. CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete i agree - not great sources, and what there are suggest shadiness. Both this article and WB21 were built by the same editors; am nominating W21 for deletion on the same grounds; poor refs, promo pressure, what refs we have suggest weirdness but neither refs nor hints are strong enough to build an article on, especially with BLP in mind. So WP:TOOSOON and if this subject is eventually notable, article might look very different. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WB21 Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: originally a tenuous article, with the pulling of the only real WP:RS and the continued SPAs showing up to try to promote it there is no real reason to keep this article -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete as it stands may become notable for fraud or media hoaxing, but WP:TOOSOON on those - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete for both this page and WB21 Fin3999 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I just managed to look at the extensive amount of disruption. Essentially, whoever is behind this used multiple paid editors - ChiefEdit88, MarcelS789, Subineditor_123 and Editor254 - all of whom have not been blocked for socking. The fact is that there are not enough reliable sources to be able to write an article. More importantly, while some of the sources show that the subject may be fraudster, there is not enough coverage to show that he is a notable fraudster. Combine that with the fact that multiple paid editors are trying to whitewash and promote the subject, I will go for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:6838:4CCC:E556:4225:C9D8:ADC (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ashkan Rafiee

Ashkan Rafiee (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; appears to fail both NBIO and the GNG. Lots of hits on Google for others named Ashkan Rafiee, but next to nothing on this individual. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy-delete - Nothing notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a week has suggested there is in fact enough for a separate article considering the circumstances and events about this, therefore there's enough to suggest this can be kept (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Kathy Shelton

Kathy Shelton (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 is a clear violation of WP:BIO1E Kbabej (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

One event? What about Trayvon Martin? His death was the one event that justifies the article. 93.224.110.17 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

keep She's notable for the 1975 event, for the 2014 CNN special, and for the 2016 appearance at the debate. Rjensen (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well right, one can put it like this. But these events are directly connected. The media decide how an event is narrated (cf. Trayvon Martin's case and the outcome: marches etc.). 93.224.110.17 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of media have a hand in this--newspapers, networks, commentators have talked about her for years--about her trial, and about her activity opposing Clinton for 41 years, as of course have enemies of Clinton. That is notability and she is someone Wiki users want to learn about in a nonpartisan source. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

keep. I agree, but the article's quality surely has to be improved. 93.224.110.17 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with the proposer - she's not notable according to WP:BIO1E. Also, most of the article is about Clinton and her approach to the defence of the accused rapist, not specifically about the subject. It's also something of a WP:COATRACK for an accusation concerning the Trump presidential campaign. Neiltonks (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - especially now that she showed up in the Trump debate production. But article needs improvement - there are more fact checks out there to make use of. 2600:1002:B118:2F37:99C:5C75:2BF3:238C (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:GNG. per sources, article quality and notability is two different things. Notability is not measured after article standard but by notability guidelines. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. A subject being difficult to keep neutral, due to being a hot-button political topic is not a valid reason to delete when the subject clearly meets notability guidelines. Editors and mods simply need to be vigilant in keeping the article encyclopedic and neutral. Fish Man (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Her name keeps getting mentioned in the campaign and people are curious about her. The article should be watched closely to ensure NPOV. 161.185.151.51 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep- This article need improvement but should not be deleted. Now she is a notable person as we can see her in various interview and Trump's campain. (Ominictionary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: this may be of interest but is written with extreme bias. HRC personal attitudes are intuited with no reference, More facts on Kathy shelton, should also be included. married, childern education.. if not then this is a rape article and should be reclassified. just to be plain this is largely politically motivated page and should be removed or dramatically altered" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.161.232 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, especially because the 1E in question is really that HRC was the appointed public defender in the case; the 1E isn't even about the subject of this article. That she has gained another few minutes of fame because she was contacted by HRC's election opponent does not change this; the reason for that goes back to the same thing: being the public defender in a case decades ago and now being a presidential candidate.  Frank  |  talk  17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The bulk of the article is about the trial. Wouldn't it be better to move to a page about the trial? There is very little biographical information about her, but quite a bit about the trial itself. I agree that this is a tough one: on one hand, she is notable for 1 event, but that event keeps getting brought up over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd support a move to a page about the trial with a redirect for Kathy Shelton to land there. Like you said, there's almost nothing biographical in this article. Kbabej (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep The subject is extremely notable at present, no doubt will be the subject of extensive searches after her appearance at the debate between Hillary and Trump. I could certainly be improved by more background on the trial, prosecution misgivings, and bio material on the subject. Activist (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Rename to Kathy Shelton rape trial or something similar. The event is notable, but the individual is not. Kathy Shelton is not notable for any other events in her life and we simply can't create a full and balanced article for her because everything written about her is in connection to the trial. Per WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, Shelton doesn't seem to merit an article, but the trial certainly could. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The individual is in the public spotlight so I think the current title is fine. I know Wikipedia doesn't like Fox News but she was on Hannity.[48] She is active on Twitter, with over 21,000 followers.[49] Some of her tweets were shown on Twitchy.[50] Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not think we can rename . The presumption on privacy is lost when it become part of a major political campaign, and very widely reported. even if it's no fault of the individual that it became involved. It's not the Kathy Shelton rape trial but the TAT rape trial, which is really undue emphasis on someone who was not convicted of rape. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tending keep.  Sandstein  08:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Organic centralism

Organic centralism (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)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, overly technical and unclear subject, can be merged into left communism or another communism article. Pariah24 ┃ ☏ 22:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep:

Notability: Article content does not determine notability Yes, maybe the article should be improved, but that does not affect its notability. The Communist Party of Italy had 43,000 members in 1924 and was lead by Bordiga. Organic centralism was one of the key concepts Bordiga used against "Bolshevisation" . They lost control of the Party at the Lyons conference largely through political manoeuvre by Gramsci and political repression by the Fascists. So I think that its notability has been clearly established. It should not be merged into Left Communism as it is has a distinct nature, particularly relevant to the political evolution in Italy, rather than to left communism. HOwever its presence in the Left Communism sidebar should be retained. It should no more be merged into communism than the article on democratic centralism.Leutha (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Not a familiar topic to most of us, but that's perhaps our ethnocentrism. Unfamiliar ≠ unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep has potential. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete - no evidence it is anything but an occasional epithet attached to "centralism" rather than a separate doctrine. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep -seems to be historically significant as a distinct ideology per references and Leutha's arguments above. As a reader, I'd rather see a brief mention in the Communism article that links to this one than have to digest all this text on the Communism page ABF99 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Moto3 Motostar British Championship season

2016 Moto3 Motostar British Championship 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)

Sub-stub with no references, no information and no indication of notability. Given that this is a low level junior motorsport championship, which often do not have articles on Wikipedia, it is unlikely to improve, even if the sources are actually out there. QueenCake (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete No content. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - unlikely to meet WP:GNG Spiderone 12:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seth Orion Schwaiger

Seth Orion Schwaiger (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. While small art magazine or website sources mention this figure as a sometimes contributor to their publications, very little suggests he's a person of note or public interest and no other information is properly cited. Primarily seems to exist for promotional purposes. Does not meet notability standards. CptAardvark22 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I am sympathetic to this artist. The sourcing is terrible, however. I'd go along with userfy. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete - no evidence of notability. yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete This artist does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. None of the sources in the article are reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocky Williform

Rocky Williform (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)

Alleged to be a G11 article, but there is some notability here. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete no independent in-depth coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• delete no independent in-depth coverage, wikipedia being used by paid shills to promote wannabes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage and pretty obvious undisclosed paid editing going on here. Even if the subject was notable, I would have !voted to delete this article per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Blatant repeated spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanghamitra Bharali

Sanghamitra Bharali (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:MUSICBIO and WP:POLITICIAN, I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. She hit the headlines in 2001 because of her alleged secret liaison with two-time Assam Chief Minister and spent 4 years in jail. There is nothing much to support her musical career. The AfC submission was also declined on 2 September 2016. GSS (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the correction on the article which i made , But i would like to correct few of the things mentioned by gss-1987 about Sanghamitra Bharali's notability.

1. She was sentenced for 4 years of jail but she got Bail within few months

2. She is a well Known Artist with songs released Globally on Big Online Music Platforms like Gaana.com , Apple Music, Saavn ,Shazam etc.

3. Digital Artist Presence like official Facebook fan page and official website .

thus i think that this article does not meets the Deletion criteria on the lack of notability ! Thanks Worldnpeace (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment: She fails WP:NMUS and WP:NPOL. But there are some coverage that may suggest GNG. These coverage broadly deals with her claim to have secretly engaged or married with former Assam Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, and her being held guilty in a misappropriated asset case. Sources: Outlook India, The Sunday India, The Telegraph, Times of India, Times of India-2, for more click here here. I'm undecided as of now and may or may not !vote later. Anup [Talk] 18:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anupmehra: True she fails WP:NMUS and WP:NPOL but the sources you provided above talked about her in 2001 and there is no media talk about her between 2001 and 2013 again in 2013 she hits some news at the time she was released from the jail and I can not find anything here about her. GSS (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, it should be this link; that one was for another afd subject.

There are some coverage (substantial ones) which were published in between 2001 and 2013 contrary to your opinion (See, The Sunday Indian and The Telegraph, linked in previous comment) . Anyway, I believe that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE thing is applicable to subjects dealing with "event" only, not bio or any other. The only concern here for me is, WP:BIO1E. I need some time to go through many of accessible sources to formulate an opinion. Anup [Talk] 07:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, she is only notable for one event and I saw the above link which only covers WP:BIO1E and I personally think it's not enough for a stand alone article. GSS (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete-Seems non-notable and evokes a light response from various media outlets at sudden spans of time!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject appears to be some sort of legislative clerk or translator, which is run of the mill staff. The sources about music are not reliable. Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

2026 in sports

2026 in sports (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)

Delete-We don't have to be yet bothered about it!!Wikipedia is not a place to incorporate future events even if they are a surety because of a probable dearth of info See WP:CRYSTALBALL!!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The Asian Games for 2026 have been awarded to Nagoya. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Non-empty, hence useful. This is basically a navigation page, rather than a regular article. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep but expand - similar to a future timeline (present in WP too), however this needs some expanding. (Also please look from 217 in sports until 2024, they're simply the same with this). It also doesn't fail WP:CRYSTALBALL as the events will happen in the said time until further notice.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as considerable time has passed and there has not been another path of comments other than Keep, therefore there is also the consideration of this being a national government agency therefore suggesting it would also be acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency

Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency (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)

An anonymous editor de-PRODded this article and inserted one reference to a directory-like source. The previous concern at PROD was: Fails WP:ORG after removal of promotional text mostly cited to press releases and organizers of a certain awards banquet. By the way, the creator has been indefinitely blocked as part of a probable paid promotional editing circle and CU confirmed sockmaster (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis). - Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• leaning delete per nom and to discourage spammers. My only qualm is that it might have a suitable redirection point as a government owned corporation, if that is in fact the case - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discouraging spammers is not an acceptable reason for deletion. You could say it about pretty much any article. Protection is easy enough to apply if necessary. The only question relevant here is: is the subject notable? As a government agency, clearly it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I have removed the article's only source. "International Business Publications" sole line of work seems to be printing and selling Wikipedia articles (see WP:IBP). I have not examined this particular instance, but it is clearly not reliable source. At the moment, I have not examined this article in any other way and do not have an opinion as to keep/redirect/delete. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. We usually regard government agencies as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as a national government agency that custom and practice considers notable. Just Chilling (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Necrothesp and Just Chilling: Usual practice is being severely tested in this case. It's a promotional article for a government promotion agency, the subject of promotion by multiple undisclosed paid editors, and part of a well known larger problem on WP around Cyprus banking/investment/gambling stuff. See COIN thread "Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency", SPI #1, SPI #2, SPI #3 and Talk:Banc De Binary if in need of further background. A rational response to this is WP:TNT and salting to prevent further abuse of the community of GF editors, not to afford presumed notability due to precedent alone. - Brianhe (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, utter rubbish. We are here to debate the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Misusing AfD to try to get rid of poor articles is not acceptable practice. It's easy enough to cut out the poor edits (as has been done) and then protect the article if there are attempts to re-add them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. National government agency that gets coverage in reliable sources [51]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Patar knight: what reliable sources exactly? Maybe if you could point them out we could get to improving this thing. - Brianhe (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything from the Cyprus Mail, [52] [53] [54] Cyprus Weekly, [55] [56] [57] and Financial Mirror, [58] should be fine. Cyprus Property News is likely okay too. [59]---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I've had a similar experience while discussing the notability of an Iranian government bank. Sometimes, due to lack of sources, notability seems questionable. But the precedent in such cases (even if sources were not available) would lean towards keep. Like one of the editors mentioned above (albeit not in the language I would prefer), the question to be discussed here is not the quality of the article, but its notability worth. And the subject is notable, not least because of the sources shown above by Patar Knight. Lourdes 13:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeoh Kay Ee

Yeoh Kay Ee (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, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NBADMINTON. Largoplazo (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Meets point 3 in WP:NBADMINTON [60]. Florentyna (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per Florentyna. NgYShung ^huh? 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Largoplazo, it would be helpful if you have a relook and respond. Florentyna and NgYShung, you can elaborate a bit more as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, keep now that it's been clarified that his medal was at the Bahrain International. "Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country", per WP:NBADMINTON. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Per NBADMINTON and per the nom's approval for keep. Lourdes 13:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per Florentyna.--Stvbastian (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Village Centre Batemans Bay

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Village Centre Batemans Bay (2nd nomination)

Village Centre Batemans Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · for deletion/Stockland Batemans Bay Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. Last AfD was 7years ago and we've come a long way in notability consensus. Nothing in gnews for its current or former name. It's a small one storey shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the last AfD under a different name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockland Batemans Bay. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: Covered in third party sources, and I've added to the article since nomination. Notable regional shopping centre, even if the article as exists is a little light . -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. The normal level for keeping a shopping center is 1 million sq ft = 100,000 sq metres. This has 13,000 sqm, which is way under the laevel. The references are trivial and do not show notability . that's what one would expect. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and this in fact could be closed as Delete hence why I'm now commenting, because the Keep vote suggesting sourcing exists and is therefore unacceptable is not the same and convincing thing as actual substance and acceptance; none what's listed is anything convincing and in fact is instead something suitable for their own website, not a substance-needing encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bell Tower Mall

Bell Tower Mall (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:GEOFEAT, which states "commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The single source here merely speculates on possible future use, and does not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete - no verifiable coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The mall closed in the late 70s, so it's expected that coverage will be scant. I did find a little bit: [61] [62] Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. no evidence of importance. The ref says only that it might be in the future. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here supports the rule that we consider all secondary schools and colleges with a real existence to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bahria Foundation College, Haripur

Bahria Foundation College, Haripur (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)

Could not locate reliable secondary-sources. Only primary sources, specifically for BEATS (which is not the subject of the article) were found. Fails WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. Existence established here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• The source that Necrothesp has identified is not independent, so delete for now, unless reliable independent sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally we only require proof of existence for secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Quoting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Bharia is a government sponsored foundation that has a relationship with the Pakistani Navy. While their website is not an independent source, I take it as reliable for the purposes of establishing the existence of the school. Numerous articles exist that prove the existence of other schools listed at the website. Independent sources are preferred, but if a secondary school can be established to exist, we generally side with keeping it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - The source verifies the schools existence so I see no valid reason for deletion, IMHO the schools own website is good as any. (Ofcourse I would prefer better sources however there's not much online especially for those in India so IMHO a school website is better than nothing at all). –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the awful formatting as well as added a cleanup tag - I've never wrote an article in my life so I don't even know where to begin on this however I didn't want to remove info that could be of use here, Every little helps as they say, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Crosley Car Owners Club

Crosley Car Owners Club (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 WP:CLUB. There's some WP:ROUTINE announcements of meetings of a club by this name in the 1950s, but nothing else that can be called independent or reliable. Redirectding to Powel Crosley, Jr. seems possible, except for the small detail that we lack a single source to cite that connects Crosley to this club. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep I did find a little, [63], [64], [65] but part of the problem is that the CCOC "officially" became a Yahoo Group, which isn't considered very reliable but it was their choice. Most of the verifiable material about the past is on dead tree, not the web, so it is verifiable but not easily verified. Since WP:V only requires that it is possible, not that it is easy, and the club article doesn't really make any contentious claims, I have to keep. We know the sources are out there, slightly out of reach, but the fault is our own. I don't live near a good library anymore, so not much help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• The first one verifies that the club exists, but its existence isn't in dispute. Numerous event announcements in old magazines and ads in Popular Science verify that too.[66] How are the second two links are evidence that independent sources have written about this club? Where you're getting from this the "possibility" that sufficient coverage exists? Are you saying you think somebody probably wrote a long article or book chapter about the club because the club says Eisenhower was a member? I don't see how being a Yahoo Group helps or harms their notability; if the club ran its own forum server, or published a newsletter instead, or published whole tomes about itself, none of that would add to notability. Why do you think an independent source covered the club sufficiently to meet the notability guidelines? I think this is a cool topic, but without sources, what can we do? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is difficult to believe that no one has written something worthwhile, but mainly before 1980, and the problem is our ability to search using only the web. Like I said, I don't have access to a good library right now, but if Ike was a member, I'm sure someone published something on that. I don't think tons of stuff is out there, but I find it hard to believe there isn't sufficient to believe they are notable. And again, none of this is particularly contentious stuff, its just a car club, but one for a very unique time, and for a very unique car. The only one to be sold in hardware stores for a few hundred bucks. They couldn't have run those ads for years if they weren't getting traction somewhere, and someone wasn't covering them somewhere. We need better searching, and I do mean WE, not just you. Using only the internet is a poor way to search for topics like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure, it was a unique car, but the notability of Crosley Corporation/Powel Crosley, Jr. is not inherited by the car's fan club. You're arguing that because a club bought a few dozen small classified ads, notability must follow from that. Imagine if some non-notable startup company's article were kept because they paid for a Super Bowl ad. You don't buy notability with ads, and if you could it the bar would be set far higher than a few small classifieds. I would be happy to accept AGF the existence of a significant book or a few solid articles about this club, if anyone told me their titles and dates, without needing to see them online. Of course offline sources count, but only if at least one editor can attest they have seen them. You can't just speculate that they're probably out there somewhere. That is a flat contradiction of WP:NRVE. Hence, WP:MUSTBESOURCES "We shouldn't delete this, because it's possible there may be sources that we haven't found" is not a valid argument to keep an article.

      By all means, move it to user space and resurrect it if any sources turn up. No harm in that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I know the relevant policies, Dennis, quoting them isn't necessary, and I think you're overstating a bit. I found [67] and noticed many just call it Crosley Club in other mentions. There is some mix over in discussion with the CAC (Crosley Automobile Club), which adds to the confusion, as they aren't related and most references to the CC is really about the CAD not CCOC. I did find enough RS to justify Crosley Auto Club, which is way more active. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• That is link to self-published sources, which don't add to notability. The Crosley car article could be expanded quite a bit, but not any of the fan clubs, beyond a paragraph in the marques's article. I'm also thinking of the dozens of club and organization articles we've deleted who had far more of this routine coverage and self-published material. I can only say I'm surprised and confused. But I don't expect everything in this world to make sense to me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete All the sources mentioned to back the notability of the club are self-published, adverts, social networks and so. Of course, it may be in fact notable, but at this point it simply fails WP:V. If someone gets a reliable source, the article can be recreated. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning Delete doesn't seem to be enough evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

MuleSoft

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/MuleSoft
• Articles for deletion/MuleSoft (2nd nomination)

MuleSoft (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)

Deleted once before as an advertising at AfD in 2012 as it is, which I'll note says something as it is given how PR-consumed Wikipedia still was at the time, and this article repeats and emphasizes it since it's all PR and unconvincing information, of course only what the company would want to say itself, which is not surprising considering the article's history with quickly-coming-and-going accounts only focusing with this article, and that's not surprising of course considering this company's environment would be PR and that alone. My own searches are then mirroring this by simply finding PR, republished PR and other unconvincing sources, nothing of actual substance, and there are no signs of it happening. Quite honestly, I suggest Deleting and Salting lest we have a 3rd AfD with the same impacts and events. SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Notability is not questioned, unless we make assumptions about why a nomination talks about searches that find "unconvincing" sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Stating that this article is "only what the company would want to say about itself" appears to be an assertion that each of the content contributors to this article is a mouthpiece for the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• As for the previous AfD, the nomination states, "Deleted once before as an advertising at AfD in 2012 as it is".  In that AfD, the only !vote cited an essay, and the closing did not follow WP:QUORUM.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• WP:PROMO says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."  Please cite examples of non-neutral wording.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Since 2012, it's reached a valuation of $1.5 billion and is considered a unicorn startup, and is apparently about to IPO. Sources now seem enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and include TechCrunch [68], Fortune, [69], The Wall Street Journal, [70], CNBC [71], and a reputable Forbes contributor, [72] among others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep  Article is sourced with well-known WP:RS.  No examples of WP:NOT have been cited.  I have skimmed the article, and don't see either a massive problem or a problem with the requirement that it be written in "an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable company in real world terms and with easily sufficient reliable source coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above, passes WP:GNG.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep -- unicorn startups are indeed rare. I also found this book written on one of its products, published by O'Reilly Media: Getting Started with MuleSoft Cloud Connect. Must be a noted company in its space. Product brochure content needs to be culled though. I already removed the meaningless awards (now on Talk page). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Khaz-Bulat Askar-Sarydzha

Khaz-Bulat Askar-Sarydzha (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)

Delete: as there is no indication he has attained the threshold of notability for inclusion or for a standalone page. Quis separabit? 22:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I suspect that inclusion in A Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Artists is a good indication of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- meets WP:ARTIST as "the person's work (or works) has become a significant monument"; the dictionary entry confirms it. More sources are likely to be available in Russian. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per WP:ARTIST. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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