Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 April	12 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) by nominator

North Park Elementary School shooting[edit]

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

this is a domestic violence issue that spilled into the workplace. Since when did WP:NOTNEWS cease to be a thing? It happened yesterday. Obviously, we cannot know if it will have the enduring coverage required to keep a crime story, nor can we know if it will have a lasting impact, altho an educated guess can be made on that. It won't. The only way this should stay is if we are going to completely disavow WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Article cites 17 sources, most of them independent of each other. WP:NotNews pertains to first-hand journalism. Wikipedia is not itself a news site, but when several actual news services consider something worth reporting, that makes it notable. Whether it is an event that happened yesterday (at one extreme) or the Big Bang (at the other extreme), notable events are still notable wherever they fell on the calendar. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. It is the first fatal school shooting of the year. It also followed the 2015 San Bernardino attack, which multiple WP:RS has noted. I would also like to note that WP:NOTNEWS refers to "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", while WP:CRIME states, "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." We don't make personal WP:CRYSTAL guesses about "enduring notability"; we assess the reliable sources. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyrus the Penner. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Still disagree with the trend to turn us into a newspaper, but obviously this isn't the forum for it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography in the Russian Federation[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT this mess of WP:OR really needs to go, though I don't doubt a neutral article on the topic could be written. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR BobLaRouche (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely content for this subject. Article needs cleanup and renaming (History of pornography in Russia). Fatty wawa (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
trully shit article fully deserving of a dose of tnt, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. Unsourced or poorly sourced, plenty of original research. The "article" consists of unrelated sections that have only Russia in common. It doesn't actually say anything about pornography in Russia, does it? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- largely unsourced original research; not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The topic may be notable, but this article ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can be marked down as one the lamest articles of Q2 2017. L3X1 (distant write) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random facts garnishing original research do not an article make. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Müller (Officer)[edit]

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

Just a man with a job. Article only sourced with unsuitable press releases. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. I agree. Just a man with a job. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a promo press piece. Non-notable for stand alone article; as said above, "a man with a job". His rank alone should not be the determining factor. Kierzek (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some ordinary employee like all others, not enough for a page. Drunken Donald (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SOLDIER. His rank is equivalent to major general. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on an essay? The Banner talk 10:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of its rank he is notable.. and only his rank is enough for being notable Divisional general German: Divisionär NATO-Code: OF-7. Also notablle because he is the vice commander of the Swiss Air Force ,Deputy Commander of the Swiss Air Force,and Notable because he will be the commander of the Swiss Air Force from 31.12.2017 on. This is just again a wikihounding deleting attack of the Banner against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that you realize that your constant attacks on me are not helping your article? Most people will see the attacks as an attempt to hide your lack of arguments to protect your own articles. The Banner talk 10:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I hope that you realize that your constant attacks on me are not helping your article? Most people will see the attacks as an attempt to hide your lack of arguments to protect your own articles. The Banner talk 10:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)> Ii don't attack you, you are the one who is stalking and bully me!FFA P-16 (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My friend, you are not even able to place responses on the correct place. (I replaced my response, as you have written through it and garbled it up.) The Banner talk 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm no big expert in the English wikipedia, but your focus on FFA P-16's articles and that you constantly suggest his articles for deletion is in my opinion a WP:HOUND case! --MBurch (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article definitely needs work, but he's a two-star general, and will soon be the commander of the Swiss Air Force. No doubt there are RS in Swiss language newspapers regarding him, someone just needs to find them. Meets WP:SOLDIER for now at least. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Kierzek. Article struck me as a self-promotional piece and lacks (presently) sufficient independent reliable sourcing. As to Peacemaker67 comment, when he makes commander of Swiss Air Force, I'm sure there will be new reliable independent sources (coverage), but until then subject doesn't meet simplest of WP standards.Cllgbksr (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllgbksr. The articel uses standart informations about Bernhard Müller from the Federal swiss Goverment, but just using Googel, and the 3 wordsLuftwaffe Bernhard Müller shows enough informations in online news and Tv [1].. In less than eight month he will be the new commander of the Swiss Air Force.. but he is also since a few years already the vice commander of the swiss air force and since a few years Divisionär ( WP:SOLDIER). FFA P-16 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER --MBurch (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brief Google search on ""Bernhard Müller" Schweiz Luftwaffe" revealed a number of sources establishing notability. Tagesanzeiger, ibid. St. Galler Tagblatt, Berner Zeitung, etc. The same goes for ""Bernhard Müller" Forces aeriennes": Le Temps, La Region, Tribune de Geneve. Switzerland is multilingual, searches are a bit more complex that you'd expect for, say, US or British military dignitaries. Kleuske (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those four German language ones are in fact just passing mentions. They are not about him. The Banner talk 21:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources Kleuske found seem compelling to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not because of SOLDIER, which is just an essay, but because of the prominent role & accompanying coverage. This article from the national Austrian daily provides some bio details:

Bernhard Müller, currently Chief Operating Officer of the Austrian Air Force, will become a new Air Force chief. Müller was a chief instructor during the introduction of the Super Pumas. Among other things, he directed humanitarian helicopter missions of the Swiss army in Albania and Sumatra as well as fire fighting missions in Greece. Müller was already being talked about in 2013 as a possible air force chief, but the election fell to Schellenberg. link.

When he becomes chief of the air force, someone is likely to create an article on him, so why delete now. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:SOLDIER, which although only an essay has long been the notability standard for military bios. Some editors are clearly either not aware of our notability standards or think they know better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets one of the criteria for WP:SOLDIER, will meet another at the end of the year.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest Link[edit]

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

The merger discussion has been on hold for a year now. I've made some section mergers such as History and International Versions but the others in that articles are just duplicates of the same info as this main article. Neverrainy (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable mainstream TV show. Drunken Donald (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:TROUTing the nom; this is the absolute last place this should be taken for discussion. There's no chance we delete this at all, so pursue another venue or be WP:BOLD and just merge it already. @Catgirl: so they're aware as the original initiator of the merge discussion Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If a merge isn't completed, it would probably be better to use the article for information about the franchise as a whole and move the international versions section, etc to the page from the UK version article, similar to The Price Is Right or Big Brother (franchise). -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Popular television show. Dean Esmay (talk)
Keep Deletion isn't cleanup. Article is about a popular television game show that is certainly notable. --Majora (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am almost positive that The Weakest Link is regarded as a cult game show. I certainly do, and even if it isn't, it was pretty popular in the 2000s nonetheless. --Porridge (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2017 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force ALBA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military Missions are notable, especialy the first Mission oft the (from neutral Switzerland) Swiss Air Force on foreigen soil. This mission made it possible to build up later the Swisscoy and the Swiss participitation at KFOR Misions.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly noteworthy for a stand-alone article, possibly add a para in Swiss Air Force which has no mention of such operations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @The Banner: Can you elaborate a bit. Searching google and google books, the operation seems to have had coverage in Swiss newspapers and military journals. The article seems to pass NPOV, NOR, and V. Can you expand upon what exactly might be wrong with it? Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some mention, but not enough to make clear that the task force and/or the mission was noteworthy. The Banner talk 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was the first humanitarian longtime mission for the Swiss Air Force abroad --MBurch (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence? The Banner talk 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cited, good body structure, well illustrated.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A modest event, but worth having a WP article on. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems notable to me as a national-level contingent in a major international operation (per WP:MILUNIT - essay not policy though), added to fact that it represented a number of firsts for the Swiss etc. Google books alone returns 36 results in journals and books which for me is sufficient to at least presume that there is significant coverage of the topic as required by policy, i.e. WP:GNG (although many of them I can't read as they aren't in English). The article does have a few English funnies so could do with being copy-edited though. Anotherclown (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Era[edit]

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

This is an OR work; it uses two sources that are not in agreement about what the eras are, and then tacks on another era. (The promotion of that supposed era, "Next-Gen Marketing", appears to be the true goal here; creator is an apparent single-purpose account whose other efforts were adding references to Next-Gen Marketing into Multichannel marketing, creating a page for "Next-Gen Marketing" (now deleted), and creating a multichannel advertising page, the contents of which I cannot check, as it has been deleted for copyright violation.) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OR. Article would need to be heavily expanded with additional reliable sources in order to be kept. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not really a thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never Say Die Records[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources are mostly own web-site + a couple with some passing mentions. Nothing of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable record label. Drunken Donald (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is lacking. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to United Express Flight 3411. OK, I don't think this needs to run any longer. There's a certain point where the fine definitions of SNOW and the far more important issues of BLP converge, with the latter overriding it. As it appears that the article on the flight will be probably be Kept (or at least close as No Consensus) then deleting and Redirecting there is an obvious close - let the debate continue at that AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Dao[edit]

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

I redirected this to United Airlines Flight 3411 but the author wants to fight about here. So here we are wasting out time with an obvious delete. Dao has absolutely no notability outside of the UA incident and that article is undergoing AfD so if it isn't deemed notable enough for inclusion, Dao himself certainly isn't. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A very clear waste of time and space. DBaK (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." BlueSalix (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you are leaving out a very relevant part of that guideline - "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's too early to tell if we should delete the flight article, but I'm sure this guy doesn't deserve his own article. I think "major role" would imply he had some role in planning out and executing the "event", but no, he was just a dude in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I really wouldn't call this event "highly significant", at least not right now. The biographical details in this article are pretty minor, and him being dragged off is actually the entire event, so you'd, in essence, be keeping two articles of the same thing if this was kept. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the World Series of Poker thing very solid, no. He is not listed anywhere on the 2009 World Series of Poker results page, and that's full of people that have no articles. There are tens of thousands of players in each one, and it's not a very convincing claim of notability, especially since it's sourced to an article about him being pulled off the airplane. The other drug trafficking thing is not that impressive, considering all the sources are local news, and could easily be mentioned in the other article (especially since it's more notable as a "guy pulled off plane has checkered past!!" thing than anything). So yes, I'm sticking with my belief that this doesn't deserve its own article. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan First, Wikipedia is not RS, second, the sources are not all local which should be apparent on a quick scan of the article had you undertaken one. But it sounds like we've reached the terminus of your interest in productive contribution to this discussion. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources of the arrest are directly local from when the event took place, the ones that aren't are in the context of him being pulled off the plane as far as I can tell. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the local RS aren't good because they're only local (a new and novel argument) and the national RS aren't good because they're only national. Makes perfect sense, Nohomersryan. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, I don't find the fact that he was previously in the news solely for something local a solid establishment of notability. The current sources that cover them aren't in context of David Dao the doctor, they're in context of David Dao the man who got shoved off a plane... aka his one event. The source of the second sentence in the "Drug convictions" paragraph is titled "Revealed: All About the Doctor Dragged Off Overbooked United Flight — and His Troubled Past"; it's not what I'd call sustained coverage, and I believe this isn't a case of a previously notable man thrust into the spotlight. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. At this time, the United Airlines Flight 3411 article suffices to tell the reader about Dao. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for one event, which is itself no way notable enough for multiple articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn - your position is that him being a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, his conviction of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and the UAL incident in 2017 are all a single event? BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE - MERGE to United Airlines Flight 3411 (or History of United Airlines) unless individual notability can be established. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there exists a valid target for Dao, then that is where, at a minimum, this title should default to redirecting with history in tact per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I watched the initial post and redirect, and felt that this was a good example of WP:NOTNEWS. Person isn't notable. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The event is notable, not this person. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect of name; not notable for stand alone article as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kierzek - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. His crimes aren't particularly notable and neither is his poker playing which was only mediocre with him not playing in the Finals or even semi-final games. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw the news reports and thought, "I hope there isn't a Wikipedia article about this guy" so I searched for it. Only notable for one event. There is no overriding public interest (as in , in the interests of the public to be aware of, rather than something the public is interested in for curiosity value) to justify the loss of privacy for this individual. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Airlines Flight 3411, given the notability of the incident, but not the person himself. (Iuio (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Dao received local coverage back in 2005 from the Louisville Courier Journal, after being convicted for drug-related offensives related to his medical practice. It's ultimately how his identity was confirmed. I'm not sure if it's enough to give him his own page, but the guy in one way or another contributed to a billion dollar loss for United - his connection to the whole story seems notable to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I voted to keep the article on the flight itself. This man deserves privacy. --Aabicus (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Gamed AfD Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [2]. Now that 20 delete !votes have snowballed based on editors reading the "massaged" version of the article, it seems like a Speedy is pre-ordained. And that's how we make sure AfDs go the way we want. BlueSalix (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reason to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Please stop removing cited material from the article - as you did here [3] - about his World Series of Poker involvement and his criminal convictions that is cited to RS. Deprecatory information is not a BLP issue when cited to multiple RS. Stop gaming the AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As created, the page has the appearance of an attack page: link. Dao was not notable yesterday, and no one would have thought about creating an article on him except for the UA incident. Thus BIOE1 applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is clearly not WP:BIO1E. Dao's drug charges and conviction did receive significant coverage at the time, so he has clearly not only notable for the United Airlines incident.[4][5][6] [7] Furthermore, I am in complete agreement with User:BlueSalix, that the removal of information related to his conviction has tainted or gamed this AfD.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom -Drdisque (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drdisque - to clarify, you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who won $117,000 in 2009, he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 qualify as a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first two things come nowhere close to WP:GNG. The fact that he didn't have an article until yesterday speaks to that. -Drdisque (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra nom. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the crimes aren't particularly notable. Sad to say, but that sort of stuff happens all the time (relatively speaking). $250k in poker over 10 years is more than I've ever made, but for a professional that doesn't seem like he's too good. $25k a year. Unless there are sources from before the United incident that would satisfy GNG this is a clear case of BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was $117,000 in 2009 which should be apparent on even a cursory look at the article, TonyBallioni. BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. I was addressing your claim above of $250k over 10 year, which averages out to $25k a year. The article clearly claims total lifetime earnings of $234k, and one year where he earned $117k. That sounds like a bad poker player who had a stroke of luck one year, and is hardly a claim to notability. Again, the crimes aren't notable, just something that caused a stir in the local news. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a stroke of luck does not disqualify someone from meeting GNG; otherwise there would be many articles (e.g. Jack Whittaker (lottery winner)) that wouldn't exist here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject essay on biographical entries for poker players would disagree with you, and those are normally more generous than the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BLP1E (same thing as BIO1E). epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, epicgenius, you think winning $117K in poker in 2009, being convicted of 98 criminal charges in 2004 in a widely covered case, and the UAL incident, are all a single event? BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no? If the win was nationally covered in 2009 and he was notable enough, we would have had an article about him. If the case was widely noted, of course we'd have an article about him. But this is the first AFD, so obviously no one has raised the "notability" question before. (There's no deletion logs.) By the way, both events fail WP:NOTABILITY. The poker win, while not unsubstantial, does not stand out much either compared to other wins, and the "wide" coverage from the 2004 charges seems to have all been from the past few days. epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to United Airlines Flight 3411 or to United Airlines. He may not be notable enough for his own Article (at least not yet, he could very well be in the future), but he is notable enough for a Redirect. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — to United Airlines Flight 3411, an article which I believe should be kept. This man is a minor figure who did not play a part in a very significant event; I think it's notable, but come on. The minor incidents covered here are unconvincing, as they appear to mostly have been significant in one Kentucky newspaper only. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the other article, and it's not particularly lengthy or bursting with coverage that would be undue weight in the aforementioned Flight 3411 article. Also, BlueSalix needs to read WP:STICK and WP:BLUDGEON. Not every opposing argument needs to be pinged and responded to with copy-and-pasted arguments, it's not likely to help your case. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Trescott as I, and other editors, have noted, there was serious gaming going on with this AfD. My notes are to let editors who !voted on the basis of the gamed version of the article know the mass deletions have been reverted. Editors deserve to make an informed !vote, not a !vote based on a selective presentation of information that one side in an argument has decided to display through selective obfuscation. I hope you agree. BlueSalix (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No gaming, just valid concerns about BLP violations. My "delete" vote was based on the fuller version of the biography, the one that made me think it should have been speedily deleted as an attack article. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "gamed" version? AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article creator means this: Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [8]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the article creator is actually urging us to judge the more deletable version of the article! AusLondonder (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Someone can't keep cropping up in the news every few years over the course of a decade without meeting GNG. BobLaRouche (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or failing that Delete. He's essentially only notable because of the United incident. The criminal history seems to have been only of limited local interest at the time. (No, BlueSalix, you don't need to remind me of things you've already written here a dozen times.) Pinkbeast (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person, not a public figure, a private individual. Some relevant details about Dr Dao can be placed in the main article on the incident. Ordinary Person (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he was notable for his medical career or for his poker career how come we had no article about him until the evening of 11 April 2017? Indeed when one was created it read like a negative attack page. AusLondonder (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Airlines Flight 3411 per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that having mediocre poker success (I dispute that he placed second in the World Series of Poker in 2009, according to our World Series of Poker article the runner up was Darvin Moon, who won a little over $5 million) and being convicted of felony charges rise anywhere near the standard of notability, as evidenced by the fact that no sources have been presented from the time of those events--they have only been publicized as part of the current media frenzy. So we are left with the single event on the United plane, which is a textbook example of BLP1E. He is receiving media coverage only in the context of this event, he is otherwise a low profile individual (one criminal incident is not notable, and the WSOP article has numbers in the thousands of participants) and even assuming that Flight 3411 is decided to be a significant event I would argue his role is not substantial in it--the long term notability of that article is dependent on its overall effects and coverage of which he is no longer a part. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He didn't come in second place in the WSOP. He came in second place at a circuit championship in Mississippi per The Washington Post (which I corrected in the article with this reference). That definitely lowers the notability on that particular claim. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources from the time of those events, FWIW - local news only. (I don't think they remotely establish notability). The article just happens to use more recent sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nuke it from orbit. This is precisely the type of private person about whom we should not have a page, barring further incident. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the article on the flight if that survives AFD, or the main United article if it does not. Agree with others above that this individual does not meet the threshold that would merit a standalone article.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the the UAL 3411 article that I believe should be kept. Notability has not been established for this person yet, and his involvement in the event can easily be covered in the other article. Other aspects of his life do not indicate notability as a separate article. --haha169 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. If sources are still covering him after six months then possibly recreate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Redirect Searching his name should result in a redirect to the flight's wiki page. He is not a notable figure. Just because he was involved in a heavily reported incident doesn't mean he should have his own Wikipedia Page. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. This man is not known for three events, just one. Neither the criminal convictions nor the poker winnings garnered any substantial media attention prior to the airline incident. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United Airlines Flight 3411.Fatty wawa (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hoped that I wouldn't find an article on this poor guy, but Wikipedia is nothing if not predictable. Classic BLP1E. AniMate 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw this coming from a mile away, Wikipedia is so predictable. Fails GNG.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - engage the CHECMATE to target this mess. BLP1E. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Also, media coverage of both the event and the individual's role have grown large and clearly will stay that way for years to come.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This event is not "highly significant". The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was highly significant. AusLondonder (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 per User:Iuio. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. This guy is not notable in the slightest apart from the airline incident. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect per above and WP:BIO1E. ansh 666 05:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Mr. Dao has become famous for one reason: he was brutalized for refusing to get off a plane. Had this awful incident not occurred, Mr. Dao would not have a WP biography, and it strikes me as the classic example of a news story which receives saturation coverage for a few days and is forgotten shortly thereafter. As for prior news coverage of his legal troubles and poker winnings, it isn't sufficient to establish enduring notability for a biography. There's a difference between being a notable individual and merely landing in the news a few times. In particular, I don't see evidence that his past crimes are notable per WP:CRIM, which requires "sustained coverage ... which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Astro4686 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:BIO1E which states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The fact that there's other coverage of this person for other reasons too means that topic also passes WP:BASIC. Per WP:BEFORE, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and so a deletion discussion is quite inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I knew someone would attempt to create an article but I am no less stunned and disappointedfor that. Have we learned nothing over the past 16-and-a-bit years? This article is precisely the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. It is not our role as encyclopedia editors to immortalise the pecadilloes of otherwise non-notable people. An administrator with more courage than me should delete this immediately. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. No relevant information that cannot be summarized elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The relevant information about the United Airlines incident must be in United Airlines Flight 3411. The remaining information is not relevant at all. --Discasto (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." User:Brogan lawrence (User talk:Brogan lawrence) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brogan lawrence (talk • contribs) — Brogan lawrence (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I've BOLDLY edited the signature in the above, which was a cut and paste of Blue Salix's signature but actually written by another editor (who has 4 contribs, 2 trivial, this one, and unjustified removal of the AFD notice...) Pinkbeast (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 per WP:BIO1E. Sideways713 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if deemed possible that the individual will at some point attain genuine general notability in the future) as only know for trivial events- winning at poker, being thrown off a plane- and the sources are insufficently deep in their coverage, mostly being about the events or their after effects rather than the man. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 12:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO1E. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BIO1E. Not notable at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create an article on the incident and redirect this to that. One awful incident should not define a private citizen's life and subsequent Google searches forever. ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. Wiki is not a newspaper 2. Haviong bad things happen to you and getting the news is not notable 3. Sustained 4.GNG 5.I removed the poker earning, that is just blatant prooof of non notablity, if arcane stuff is dredged up from sources to make body for the article. 6. Let it snow let it snow let it snow L3X1 (distant write) 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable individual who received coverage simply because of a news event that in itself may not be notable. Trivial events dashed between absolutely no consistent coverage does not help make the article's case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete per aforementioned WP:BIO1E. You cannot measure the significance of this event on two days of reactions. No one's going to be writing about this in history books.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 caknuck _° needs to be running more often 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 - Seems like pretty clear WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Dreams: The Half Life of Gregor Samsa[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). SamsaK (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per these reviews - Pakn Treger , Blogcritics, Library Journal, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune. There is also this analysis and this analysis. It was also featured in a scholarly article about insects in dreams. There is much more available with just searching the name itself in Google. Did you follow WP:BEFORE? SL93 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL93. Passes WP:NBOOK with flying colors. The nominator has only been around for two weeks, so we can forgive them if they misapplied the notability policy. Altamel (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable book as shown by notable sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clearly passes GNG and NBOOK, as shown by reviews found by SL93. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 06:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was this article nominated for deletion. It meets GNG, WP:BOOKCRIT and NBOOK. And as SL93 indicated: "Per these reviews - Pakn Treger , Blogcritics, Library Journal, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune. There is also this analysis and this analysis. It was also featured in a scholarly article about insects in dreams. There is much more available with just searching the name itself in Google. Did you follow WP:BEFORE?" This AfD reminded me that I would like to read Kafka again and intend on doing so.Dean Esmay (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is a newcomer; they probably just made the mistake of conflating "this article does not cite any sources" with "this article is not notable." Altamel (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep it meets It meets GNG, WP:BOOKCRIT and NBOOK, so I see no reason to delete--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting with a mix of a G7 (assuming that User:Vibhas Joshi is the new account of the soft blocked User:TheRisingStarsInc) and that there is an overwhelming consensus to delete here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhas Joshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:ENT. Most significant credit is assistant cinematographer on a minor film. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This probably could have been speedily deleted as WP:G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Mduvekot (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and not much, if any, claim for notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the above, "can't get there from here"; if this bloke was notable, which he ain't, this mass of hagiography would be of no use in constructing a page about him. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and is a Promotional article, that may be self-promotion from a single purpose account. There is certainly peacock wording (as noted above), no references (IMDb is not reliable and certainly can not be used for notability), with the only section full of original research. Otr500 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all arguments noted above. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the achievements are not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Dahiphale[edit]

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

CV of a non-notable urologist. He gets a mention in the Times of India for being part of a news conference about a conference, and another story about clinics he set up with his wife. Other than that, all the sources were listings, and Google doesn't seem to turn up much more. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does some academic work but doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion, and in a more general sense he doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO either. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant promo. really bad sign when grownups are reaching back to undergrad awards to claim they are awesome. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG, and the article looks like a case of WP:RESUME. Brief mentions in newspapers, even The Times of India, is not enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:ACADEMIC is not applicable as the subject has not carried out any major academic research at any point in his career. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two brief mentions in the Times of India already cited as sources in the article are neither in-depth enough for WP:GNG nor enough to verify the claims in the article, and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam G. Landolfi[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No doubt a nice guy and a successful guy, but not a notable guy. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing our notability guidelines. I've searched for sources but haven't found anything significant. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yep, fails simplest of WP:GNG and I love race cars... Cllgbksr (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pszenyczny[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with lots of routine and primary sources. No evidence other than passing mentions in secondary sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY with 4 AHL games and no major awards, only a long career in the low- to mid-minor leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No doubt fans of the teams for whom he's played remember him fondly, but that doesn't translate to Wikipedia notability. Ravenswing 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage only and nothing to show any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uta Dammann[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability requirements. There is some coverage of her in sources, but this is mostly in the form of interviews and therefore not independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I normally stay away from deletion disscussions, but after cleaning out references, I feel I should note that of the 21 references in text, 13 of them were other Wikipedia articles that can't be used as references. They were not sourcing anything to begin with, like using the article Iraq to source that she was a senior executive on projects there, the telecommunication article to source that she started a business, or her a reference to a church to source that she was a member. These articles have nothing to do with anything mentioned in her article. Of the remaining references, there are Facebook pages, Twitter, home pages of websites rather than one that supports the text, etc. A google search doesn't come up with much more than social networking sites, and those already mentioned here. I really don't see how the subject could pass notability with what's provided here. Cmr08 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New editors sometimes use references to provide links to other articles because they don't yet know about wikilinks, but here we had both. Thanks for doing the clean-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass a simple google-news hit count (2), or even google (353). What is out there - isn't enough.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Noting WP:HITS, there is insufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Gross[edit]

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

NN hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. Ravenswing 19:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that the article states he is a professional player, not amateur -- but only in 2nd tier National League B. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails NHOCKEY BobLaRouche (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON and playing the NLB does not generate the kind of draft coverage even other hopefuls tend to get. Fails GNG and and NHOCKEY (senior team is the only international team with presumed notability, juniors do not). Yosemiter (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NHOCKEY and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Pettersson[edit]

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

NN amateur teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. (No prejudice against redirecting to his brother's article.) Ravenswing 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another WP:TOOSOON prior to being drafted without any awards. Found this brief write-up from THN but nothing substantial for GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What Wikipedia notability criteria do you claim the subject's alleged "potential" satisfies? Ravenswing 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG. Apparently too soon. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. No need to move to draft as the article can be undeleted if he ends up being a first round draft pick. (I typically do this around the draft each year anyway). -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juuso Välimäki[edit]

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

NN amateur teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is all but unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. Ravenswing 19:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON for now until if and when h gets drafted in the first round of the NHL. Only decent coverage (from a possible WP:ROUTINE source since they really only cover the WHL) is this in-depth write up on him. Otherwise, he has not yet achieved any NHOCKEY criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What Wikipedia notability criteria do you claim the subject's alleged "potential" satisfies? Ravenswing 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It's just common sense. Turning this page into a draft now would save a lot of time in the future. I think we all know he has the potential. 1) He's already a recognized figure in Finland (received an invitation to the Finnish Independence Day Reception in 2016).^[1] 2) He's a projected first round pick for the 2017 NHL Entry Draft.^[2] 3) He captained the gold medal-winning team at the 2016 IIHF World U18 Championships.^[3] Hurrygane (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is lost by deleting. We admins in the project, typically go back and undelete these types of player pages that are deleted if they end up becoming notable so effort is never lost. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very much too soon. Can find no evidence they meet GNG and arguments that they might be notable in the future are WP:CRYSTALBALL. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ruzicka[edit]

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

NN amateur teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. Ravenswing 19:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Primarily because of WP:TOOSOON. Best references for GNG I found was this article about his draft prospects and this interview from Hockey's Future. My guess he has close to 50% chance to making the first round in the draft, at which point he will meet NHOCKEY and the article can be un-deleted. His current accomplishments certainly do not meet NHOCKEY (only the senior national team has presumed notability, he has only play in the juniors). Yosemiter (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What Wikipedia notability criteria do you claim the subject's alleged "potential" satisfies? Ravenswing 00:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an amateur player with no signs of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Belfi[edit]

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

This article has been in terrible condition since, well, forever; I see that I added something a few years ago with a source, but I really don't see how this musician passes GNG (not enough sources that I can see) or the musician guideliness. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to lack the relevant claims to notability, even the one reference refers to him as "one of the more productive elements in Italy's minimal rock underground" which for me is indicative of him not having wider importance. KaisaL (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of Il Sogno del Marinaio album review album review live review bio and David Grubbs / Andrea Belfi / Stefano Pilia album review (see the Wire quote) B/B/S/ article review with solo coverage album review album review (see the Wire reviewed Ned n°2 and Between Neck & Stomach). More to be found in German and Italian. discog [9] may be good for wp:music#5? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:HOUND. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in AfD discussions does not obligate Wikipedia volunteer editors to work on articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two above comments are responses to this comment which was later removed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In pretty terrible condition, short on reliable sources. SaintAviator lets talk 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mächler[edit]

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

Seems to be an internal functionary in a minor political party. There aren't any convincing claims of notability and the sources are almost entirely the Pirate Party and Machler's website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill minor party official of small (albeit International) political party. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing claimed in the article constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources and blogs with no evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors Opposing Circumcision[edit]

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

Lacking evidence of WP:GNG notability. The citations are largely to themselves or to a particular lawsuit they were involved in, but not about the org. Bri (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Lacks wider notability. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is indeed notable, but the article fails to do it justice. It needs to be updated. I'll work on it in the next few days.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG and WP:PROMO Content attempts to hang importance on their putative role in Oregon court case, calling it a "landmark", but we don't seem to have an article on that and even if the case was landmark and notable, N is not inherited. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFRINGE. The likely reason there are no further secondary sources detailing this group is that the medical evidence on the efficacy of circumcision (e.g., reducing HIV transmission) has changed the medical ethical equation, and fewer doctors are willing to be associated with a WP:FRINGE movement. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preston treend[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and non-WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails WP:NSPORTS. PROD removed by page creator. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a WP:COI judging by the creator's username. Could be a candidate for WP:A7. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Treend does not deserve to be deleted from wikipedia. Many sources accreditate his legitimacy in the sports and coaching world. He deserves to have his own wikipedia page for his success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansofpreston (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject of this biography meets notability criteria per WP:BIO. This just some of this teacher's students having a bit of fun. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Edgeweyes, this is simply not true. Preston was a great wrestler and deserves a wiki page. Fansofpreston (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)FansOfPreston[reply]

Delete - per nom. Nikki♥311 22:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be a nice guy and a fine coach, but nothing shows he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Host Analytics Inc[edit]

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

Undisclosed paid article, all sources are churnalism - press releases masquerading as editorial content, not independent of the company. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Every time I see mention of a company's funding, a little "Conflict of Interest" alarm klaxon goes off. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate references, and promotional (e.g. "it added big names to its client bas"). As there seems to be clear proof of editing in violation of the terms of use at WP:ANI, it could be deleted on that ground alone, the same as we delete copyvio. The WMF leaves enforcement of the TOU to the community,and this is a suitable place to do it. ` DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete references mostly glorified press releases, no indication of actual notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMOTIONAL DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rustici[edit]

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

Subject is a minor academic, does not pass WP:Academics. Being an advisor to Ben Carson does not mitigate this, as the subject also doesn't pass WP:Politician or WP:GNG. Ghits [10] are minimal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 2 major media sources mentioning the subject. How does that not meet GNG? Admittedly the article is short, but how does it harm the encyclopedia? I think that the real issue is that the primary author is accused of being a paid editor. The article in and of itself appears to be fine. Endercase (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether a paid editor created the article had nothing to do with my nomination whatsoever -- I've substantially improved other articles by the same editor. It's simply the case that the subject is not notable, any way you look at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor academic. Also, how is being a "senior economics advisor" to one of 18 failed presidential candidate two years ago supposed to be a mark of notability? --Calton | Talk 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence subject satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither NAUTHOR or WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG - doesn't meet GNG, NAUTHOR or PROF. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; we almost always delete articles about assistant and associate professors. This person has had little impact on his field so far. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACADEMIC and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:POLITICIAN for his candidate-advisor work nor WP:PROF for his scholarly contributions to economics. I note, for instance, that he is not listed by RePEc as being among the top economists in his state or country, and Google scholar finds only five publications, none with more than single-digit citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boar Man[edit]

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

This may be a hoax the principal source "Legend of the boar man" that has now been removed by the article creator is impossible to find and I could find no trace of a boar man in Wichita or any where else on the web but in any case this does not pass WP:GNG a search of cryptozoologynews (one of the sources cited) for boar man or wichita turns up nothing. Domdeparis (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a hoax, and definitely not notable. As the nominator stated, there is pretty much no information anywhere about this supposed cryptid, even on the actual sources being used in the article such as cryptozoologynews. And even if the subject wasn't just completely WP:MADEUP, the article is mostly OR and Synthesis, as it takes sources not about the subject, and tries to make claims connecting it (i.e., a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Services is being used to claim that animal deaths might because of Boar Man, or using sources on actual mythological subjects to claim that its related to this subject). As none of the sources being claimed in this article even mention the creature, thus making them complete false flags, I'd argue that this article could even just be Speedied as a blatant hoax. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hesitated about going down that road but as the creator seems to have had a lot of fun sourcing or rather pseudo-sourcing the subject I thought he might like the chance to defend it here and go the whole hog with the hoax. Domdeparis (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find this article to be a hoax. The sources are general titles of websites, when you visit Cryptozoology News the main title (in the top of the browser navbar) is what is given as an article title. There is no mention of Boar Man. Ashley. "The Haunted Parallel Forest In Oklahoma Is Not For The Faint Of Heart." OnlyInYourState. N.p., 2016 makes no mention of this creature, and most of the other sources are in relation to other things. There is no sourcing or even mentions of this legendary creature online. This deceitful sourcing and lack of mentions online leads me to believe that this is indeed, a hoax. I would not speedy the article, because that is for obvious cases. The sourcing makes this non obvious. Nevertheless, a hoax must be deleted. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure vandalism. I note that this is the creator's only work on Wikipedia. Notability cannot be verified. MartinJones (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there's any point having articles for fake animals that present them as though there is even a possibility they are real. Clawsyclaw (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result was keep. Please initiate Rename/Move proposals at the tallk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

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

This has been nominated before resulting in no consensus. As that means no clear consensus to keep either, I'm starting a fresh discussion. The issues which existed back then still exist today. This is very trivial has little appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans. The numbers that are used during the current season are always listed in the article for the current season and in the drivers' and constructors' articles. All this lists adds to that is the couple of former drivers that still hold the rights to a number and the one number that has been permanently retired. That does not seem to be enough for a standalone article for this concept that has only been in use for a minimal period of Formula One's total existence. Moreover, F1 cars carried numbers before 2014 as well and those are completely ignored. T v x1 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename Formula One driver numbers and expand. The numbers satisfy WP:GNG,[11][12] and are often associated with specific drivers apparently (e.g. #5 and Nigel Mansell and a list of "Iconic F1 numbers"). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my rationale, those iconic numbers like Mansell's 5 or Hill's 0 aren't mentioned in this list. It only relates to the 2014 concept. Also, Wikipedia is not a F1 fansite. We're not here to list F1 fans' favorite numbers.T v x1 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The previous AfD discussion is located here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Formula One driver numbers. The renamed article can currently comfortably accomodate the list within it. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I used to support this list, but I feel it does not do any good and is just a useless trivia as numbers are shown in every season's article. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it can be expanded to explain the current and past numbering systems and number associations (with a renaming and scope broadening). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean that every single number from the past should be listed and that is not needed as every F1 season's article has them listed. Why do you feel the need to duplicate the same information elsewhere? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid. This is evidenced in part by the 5,273 page views the page has received in the last thirty days. Full disclaimer: Note that I closed the previous AfD discussion, located here, as no consensus in February 2016, but this does not preclude me from contributing to this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just how is this a navigational aid? The numbers don't link anywhere. It's duplication anyway. All those numbers are already listed in the season articles as well.T v x1 16:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Calirty and NA1000. L3X1 (distant write) 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And AFD is not a vote. You need to give guideline and or policy based arguments to justify your stance. Pure votes are likely to be disregarded by the person who closes this. Thus simply put "clarity" is not a valid reason to keep (or delete) an article. Especially as this content is already present in other places.T v x1 21:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I haven't read about the policy re: VFD. I suppose you're going to appeal this one as well? And it passes NOTSTATS. L3X1 (distant write)

02:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Oh, and last one out of me: WP:BLUDGEON. 02:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's my good right to query contributions which are simply WP:ILIKEIT votes or don't make sense at all. Passing NOTSTATS is not a trump card to an article. In fact nobody quoted NOSTATS as a reason for deletion. There are other more pressing issued than that. Most importantly this essentially duplication.T v x1 16:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very trivial has little appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans. Unless my brain fails me, thats an ATA. The numbers that are used during the current season are always listed in the article for the current season and in the drivers' and constructors' articles. I assume in your rationale you are referring to the list topping up 2016 Formula One season? This list is for 2017 drivers. Your whole rational is filled with ATA. Every time you accuse us of ILIKEIT, it looks like you DONTLIKEIT.L3X1 (distant write) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know what we're discussing here. This list here is not dedicated to a particular season at all. There a couple drivers who don't drive in 2017 in it. And when I write current season, I mean current season. The current season is 2017, not 2016. Regardless it's duplication, all those numbers are already listed in the articles on the seasons during which these drivers drove.T v x1 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote The following lists all Formula One driver numbers currently claimed, as of the 2017 season: If there are drivers who don't drive in 2017, why are they on a current list? L3X1 (distant write) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is NOT a vote. Give a justified reason why it should be kept. Also read WP:ILIKEIT.T v x1 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Wright (musician)[edit]

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

Advertorially skewed WP:BLP of a musician, which is nowhere close to reliably sourced. The only potential passage of NMUSIC here is that he's placed songs in TV shows, but NMUSIC criteria have to be supported by reliable sources and are not passed just because an article asserts it. And the only "sources" present here are video clips, one of which is on YouTube and neither of which are about the subject. This was actually nominated at MFD as a stale draftspace draft, but then got arbitrarily moved into mainspace without a proper AFC review, thus forcing premature closure of the MFD discussion -- but it doesn't contain any properly sourced indication of notability that would allow it to stay in articlespace either. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must have looked at this 20 times over several days. Couldn't make my mind up about it, when it was copied from userspace. A last look at sources, I can see that WP:BLP sources are not there. May be a pseudo musician, which from personal experience I can attest there is lots and lots of them, but notable, no. scope_creep (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not salting as it's been created only once at least under this name Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOTpay[edit]

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

No evidence that this software meets WP:N, with virtually no coverage found by Google or Google News. The awards cited in the article, as far as I can tell, were won by the associated company Gala Tent, but there's no indication in the sources that were given (which I mostly removed before noticing the mention in the article of Gala Tent, which a couple of the sources did attest to) that they were for this software. Perhaps Gala Tent is notable but SOTpay isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more sources on the subject and have updated them to the article, maybe they will help. Also note that SOTpay is a product of Gala Tent. --Lingveno (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SOTpay is a product of Gala Tent, but every product of a notable company (assuming Gala Tent is notable) isn't itself automatically notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt Gala Tent and its owner Jason Mace (who's deleted article was also recently recreated at Jason Mace in what seems to be part of the same spam campaign) have spammed Wikipedia in the past. Anything connected with them is to be treated with great suspicion. This is all clearly written by he same person/people. One key "tell" is that they use the phrase "Chamber of Commerce" as if it uniquely identifies a body rather than being a description for many hundreds or thousands of different bodies worldwide. It's weird and distinctive. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt a long, long way off meeting WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. SmartSE (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Game Test Modes[edit]

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

Copy-paste move of Bop It Test Modes, which had been subject of an AFD. Clearly falls under WP:NOTHOWTO, PROD removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject was already brought to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bop It Test Modes, and was well on its way to deletion, before the discussion was circumvented by blanking that original page, and recreating it here. All of the same arguments for deletion included on that AFD still apply here. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and my previous nom vote!) and hopefully this loophole in the AfD process is closed. No improvements at all from what it was under the old title. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a guide or manual. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others, Wikipedia is not a guide. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ryan Fox[edit]

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

Even if you want to argue that subject technically passes WP:NACTOR #1 via Henry Danger and Jake and the Never Land Pirates (a proposition that I do not agree with), the subject clearly fails WP:BASIC – I could find only one very passing mention at Deadline, and found nothing at all at Variety, THR, EW, LA Times, NY Times, or TVLine. It appears to still be way WP:TOOSOON for this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sourced to IMDB; fails NACTOR BobLaRouche (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GrokOla (software)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this wiki software. Yaron K. (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to possibly fail WP:PROMO, it seems pretty buzzword-y. Can't find notable mention of it from Google searches, outside of promo pages and the like. bojo | talk 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - anything that says it is a "solution" while not having anything to do with solutions is suspect to be marketing cut-n-paste. Too soon anyway, if only recently "launched". Note also that a search on the company gets noise from a more notable Keyhole, Inc W Nowicki (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Murphy (businessman)[edit]

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

no indication of notability, virtually no sources able to be found at all, given sources do not pass muster $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 12:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON. He played for the Patriots. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note that I've been trying to find anything to link the Bill Murphy of the GATA to the Bill Murphy that played for the Patriots, and I'm not finding anything except WP mirrors.~~ Nevermind, I found his blog at https://www.lemetropolecafe.com/

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so then this would be him. Well, then, he played briefly but well in the NFL, keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Yup. Is there any formality to withdrawing an AfD or can I just close this discussion and remove the notice from the article?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to do it for you. Even though I've !voted it's a pretty straightforward and unopposed withdrawal. The Patriots angle was not clear at all when this Afd opened. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he played in the NFL. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMail[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with any of the products of a similar name. The WP:COI is obvious. Kleuske (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,I have just created an article which simply described a software solution called EasyMail. This is the URL: [[13]]. The page described - what features offers this software products, what is its history and what technologies are used. BUT I received an email saying that the article will be deleted. Why is that? Please give me further explanation because I need to know what is wrong with my article. I have seen many articles like this one which follow the same architecture and type of content and I didn't know that I do something wrong.

There are two main source which can be used as a proof of my words. The first one is the website of the project which is [[14]]. Another source which is even more reliable is the GitHub repository [[15]]. On the website is described what the product offers and also in the GitHub repository can be seen everything which is developed since 2015. The project has three contributors and 35 different people are following it. Also, the project has been presented to Mailjet during this event here [[16]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel.tashev (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavel.tashev: Coverage in subject independent reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines, chapters in books about this application not written by its developers etc.) is needed to estabilish notability. Project website and GitHub repository are self-published sources not useable to prove notability. Pavlor (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its a pretty generic name, and the sources that I can find do not appear to be talking about this product, and the products that they are talking about might not even be notable. In short, it fails our general notability guideline and the post above combined with information on the site make it pretty clear this is a promotional article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure advertising of non notable product. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations that provide evidence of notability. My own searches have also found none. And any article using "solution" in its PR sense, twice in the first two sentences, was probably written by a marketing person. Maproom (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Also fails WP:GNG AND WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, I don't think it'd fall under the CSD for promotional content. There's a few promotional sentences but not enough to be unambiguously advertising. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Douieb[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist - this was a contested PROD without explanation but does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE Peter Rehse (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or any SNG. None of the sources given are independent and my own search didn't find any significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And WP:SALT NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Kappa Gamma[edit]

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

This looks like something made up and not showing obvious significance. However, the page logs seem to have shown admins deleting and recreating it a lot, so I thought I'd bring discussion here first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the copy in userspace. —Cryptic 12:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single independent source provided that indicates any notability. Searches yield very little except that they raise money for some causes and collect a few mentions along the way. Oh, and they are on Facebook - who would have known. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Velella sources are all available below... thank you Appie094 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is WP:PRIMARY. As I search for info on the net I can't find enough to meet WP:ORG. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of times it has been re-created WP:SALT should be considered if final consensus if delete. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would you place a protection on the page if this is the second time it's been created in 5 years... Also, there are available websites below where the fraternity is talked about in detail. Appie094 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; the page was created by a member of the fraternity which is a COI and their goal seems to be to publicize this group. I applaud their good works, but they fact that they are an official non-profit and do good work does not make then notable. d331dot (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 331dot my argument is not based on the work the fraternity does. Look at all the references and links that the fraternity is talked about in below please and that should change your mind because it meets the criteria for wikipedia. Appie094 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully state that I think as a member your conflict of interest is too strong to permit you to write an objective article that complies with the GNG. There is also a promotional element here as well, I think. I've already suggested that it would be best for you to consent to the page being moved to your Sandbox or Draft so you can further work on it as you learn how the guidelines apply. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot that would be great actually, much better than permanently deleting the fraternity. Appie094 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is made for a fraternity that has been running for 17 years. Multiple websites showing brothers are www.betakappagamma.org and bkgbaylor.org . I have been working on the website for the past hour and would be very disappointed if my efforts were in vain. The fraternity has grown immensely since 2012 and even the content on the page has resembled that of any other fraternity on Wikipedia. In terms of national presence, if you look on school websites like Baylor, UT Austin or LSU, you will find Beta Kappa Gamma's influence on the community. In terms of chapter numbers, there are multiple fraternities and sororities that have less than 7 and ones that only have 1 chapter(local fraternities).

Also, the criteria here is subjective. I am providing sources that show that the organization is a legitimate one not only in terms of the university level but also in terms of the US Government. The Facebook links are showing y'all the impact the organization had because I keep getting mixed requests. This is a very subjective argument because on the wikipedia page, it states:

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Additional considerations are: Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead."

I have provided more than 6 sources from different major cities and different states around the country.

These are sources that show that it is an established official organization in the United States and that it is a social service fraternity: http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sfl/chapter_orgpage.php?id=55 (UT AUSTIN WEBSITE) http://www.baylor.edu/studentactivities/greeklife/index.php?id=74963 (BAYLOR UNIVERSITY WEBSITE) https://www.docdroid.net/fTrEh2s/bk-articles-of-incorporation-1.pdf.html (Official document of article of incorporation) https://issuu.com/thedailyreveille/docs/issuu1026 (Page 3 showing BKG fundraising) https://www.gofundme.com/BetaKappaGamma

In addition to all these websites, Relay for life is the biggest cancer research event in America. Beta Kappa Gamma was the GOLD sponsor of Relay for life donating thousands of dollars. Here it is on their website. http://main.acsevents.org/site/TR?fr_id=82902&pg=informational&sid=209324

To show the publicity of the organization and both it's service and social impacts:

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/03/16/fraternity-to-hold-dodge-for-a-cause-fundraiser/ (newspaper) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTJ1kYwIsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKvHSeVmYAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpR5qFYnpZg http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beta%20Kappa%20Gamma

Not only was there local coverage, there was also outside local coverage by cities outside of the fraternity's main residence/university.

These are additional sources for Beta Kappa Gamma in Houston and nationally

http://www.uh.edu/af/news/March12/green4.htm (UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON WEBSITE) https://www.google.com/search?q=Beta+kappa+gamma+friends+for+life&oq=beta+kappa+gamma+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60l3j69i59.3587j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.facebook.com/The-Phoenix-Educational-Foundation-319334178173227/ https://www.facebook.com/bkgbaylor/photos/a.833981646649720.1073741830.830174837030401/997157443665472/?type=1&theater

MarnetteD Velella please let me know what you think. How is raising money for charity not notable?

Also, look at these fraternities, I have many more sources listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Phi_Gamma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_Iota_Society

Thank you Appie094 —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Appie094 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your question that you embedded in the middle of the thread above - How is raising money for charity not notable? - shows a complete misunderstanding of what Notability means on Wikipedia. It has a special and cafeully designated meaning here, somewhat different from the conventional usage. It would be worth taking some time out to read and understand WP:GNG, otherwise this whole debate must seem illogical. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella notable as in its presence on third party websites and publicity. The whole argument is proving you wrong by showing that there is an impact by the organization, it exists in may websites, there is legal proof and it exists in journals. What more can anyone do to show you? I've literally put so many sources in my article of writing if you went through it. My job isn't to prove you wrong, as an experienced user, just ask me what you need specifically and I will send it to you, I don't understand why this is much more complicated than it should be. Appie094 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Just humour me and read WP:GNG. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first sentence states :" "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So not just a trivial mention, but have a topic that directly addresses the organization and it's functions in detail, right Velella ?

Here is an article is ONLY talking about a tournament Beta Kappa Gamma threw, as it "addresses the topic directly and in detail":

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/03/16/fraternity-to-hold-dodge-for-a-cause-fundraiser/

Here is an article that goes into detail about the service the University of Houston Beta Kappa Gamma chapter did:

http://www.uh.edu/af/news/March12/green4.htm

Here is an article that goes into detail about the LSU chapter and about it's philanthropy event and fundraising(it's the third page):

https://issuu.com/thedailyreveille/docs/issuu1026

These along with the other links satisfy the notability requirement. I respect your background as a biology since I'm currently researching in molecular genetics and you realize how important reliability of references are in research. Please Provide me with specific criticisms. You are contradicting yourself and what is actually written on the page. All your giving me are sarcastic remarks. Appie094 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Please actually visit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Epsilon_Psi all of the 6 references are from the fraternity's website. This is not a very fair evaluation of this fraternity. Appie094 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella http://www.s4g.com/Beta-Kappa-Gamma-Fraternity-Paraphernalia, https://www.onegreekstore.com/org/beta-kappa-gamma >Here are two websites that sells this fraternity's merchandise. https://greekhouseoffonts.com/org/ >and another that designs their letters for creation of merchandise Harshy389 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other things exist; each page is judged on its own merits. That said, it seems you may have found another page that might merit deletion- especially if it was created by a member of that group. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk so even this website as well with no references? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Phi_Gamma or this one with just the national website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_Iota_Society The point I am trying to make is that I have fully provided much more websites than many organizations, yet I am receiving no criticism based on the content but merely based on the way I am presenting my information. Let's not get side tracked and work together to fulfill all the requirements to make this a valid page. Appie094 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is based on the content- we are saying that the information the content gives does not make your fraternity meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I went through google and google news and added to the article. I think the article on the Hazing Death at LSU and the student newspaper coverage of the fraternity as part of the Dodgeball tournament at Baylor *may* be enough.Naraht (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Fails WP:NORG The news coverage of the hazing death itself may be notable, and if so, should be included in the Hazing article. It does not make the fraternity itself notable. Balance of sources are social media and primary. It appears to be regularly recreated with a distinctly promotional tone. Scr★pIron^IV 16:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to recreation/undeletion if it can be verified that he does pass WP:NFOOTY but so far no verification has been provided. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Bani Attiah[edit]

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

NN footballer, fails WP:NSPORTS Nördic Nightfury 10:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he fails WP:NFOOTY, he certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though unverified, there's a reasonable chance he actually does meet WP:NFOOTY. He plays for Al-Faisaly SC in the fully pro Jordanian top flight. None of the sources in the article confirm that he's actually played, but I think that has more to do insufficient sourcing than actual fact. There was unreferenced description of an incident in a league match he played (which I have since removed). According to our article on Al-Faisaly SC, he wears the #1 shirt, suggesting that he's probably the first choice goalkeeper. If this can be verified the article should be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilithium (Star Trek)[edit]

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

9 years ago this survived an AfD because, well, Star Trek. 9 years of nobody addressing the refimprove tags, 9 years of this being a fan-written article on a non-notable concept. No significance of this for real life is sourced, and little is alleged. That type of stuff is much better covered at Memory Alpha. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep, because, well, Star Trek. No, seriously, while I'm not ready to boldly !vote yet The Physics of Star rightly calls it "crucial" and a "centrepiece" of Star Trek warp drive -- and of course major storylines in both TV and film have revolved around dilithium. At the very least, this would need to be a redirect and partial merge, say to Warp drive. But I rather think this is going to be found to be a notable fictional element (no pun intended). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I count at least six non-trivial, independent, RS'es covering dilithium in the first page of the 'books' link in the revised Find Sources template. GNG is met, AfD is not for cleanup, WP:SOFIXIT, etc. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and this, from Wired, while, while not about the fictional dilthium has a surprisingly detailed 'graph on what Star Trek dilithium "is", where it was in the table of elements, etc.:

The dilithium of Star Trek was not merely a molecule with two atoms of lithium, though — it was always described as its own element, and a periodic table seen in one episode listed it as having atomic weight 87 (which would place it between Rubidium and Strontium if its atomic number followed normal convention, but we can probably assume that dilithium is a bit unusual and obeys laws of molecular physics as yet unknown to our primitive science).

Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was pretty notable Back in the Day, as per JClemens there should be some sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes I agree that this is a notable fictional element, based on Gbooks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens as there appears to a sufficient amount of coverage on this subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Physical Literacy[edit]

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

no evidence for notability--trivial local references only DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few mentions or citations, fails NORG and my more relaxed notability criteria for NGOs. We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya M. Foster[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- few publications DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a published poet, I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and they currently don't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Just primary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Does not otherwise meet. WP:GNG --Jack Frost (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson (engineer)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Vcwatcher with the following rationale "removing notice" (sigh). The sources are, as I said, poor - at best we have an interview in niche magazine and some mentions in passing. Seems like your usual vanity paid-for bio - in the interest of disclosure, I would therefore like to ask User: Vcwatcher is he has any connection with the subject here, and if he is aware of WP:PAID? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Incidentally, given the look of the article and the contributions of User:Vcwatcher I'd suggest it's starting to quack like paid editing. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that these streets are not notable per [[WP:GNG] or WP:ROADOUTCOMES. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boudreau Road[edit]

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

No notability for minor roads in and around Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta. One of several in a series that fail WP:GNG and WP:ROADOUTCOMES. -- Acefitt 07:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom includes:

Calgary

Edmonton

Delete: Non-referenced with no notability. A map is likely the only place information on these can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all—none of these currently makes a case for notability under GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 11:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: There's thousands of roads that won't establish notability and haven't an article one of its own. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added a handful more that are equally insignificant. There will likely be a second nom with more. -- Acefitt 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as very few sources are out there to prove they meet WP:GNG. I have also notified User:117Avenue as the creator of many of these. "Pepper" @ 00:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 00:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fox Drive and Mill Woods Road. Not only is Fox Drive an artery, it has a history and notable landmarks along its route. With some work the Fox Drive article can be expanded. While Mill Woods Road is a non-notable collector, like many of the roads listed here, I feel that it has an Edmonton cultural impact, and is a statement of the style of Mill Woods. With some research, I think that information could be added to the Mill Woods Road article to make it more notable. If this still doesn't meet the requirements for article status, it should at least be merged into Mill Woods. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted. -- Acefitt 05:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a collection of unimportant information, a directory (or list) of worldwide common street names, or a crystal ball for speculation of possible future article expansion -- OR-- failing that possibility--- a redirect. Map entries can be found on any map. Although a map used for a reference might be good for content, it does not advance WP:notability and in the case of Boudreau Road and others, there are no references.

Comments: I just picked 66 Street, Edmonton, and the lead states, "66 Street is the designated name of two major arterial roads and a short rural road...", then "The two major segments...". I am already confused as to which "road or segments" the article subject covers. The article appears to indirectly cover this with the "Neighbourhoods" section of South Edmonton and North Edmonton but the short rural road seems to have gotten lost or forgotten.

The problems are three-fold. 1)- The articles all mostly use the single source same reference map (archived or not), and some (119/122 Street, Edmonton) even use dead links or like McKenney Avenue, no reference at all so, 2)- there is no notability for standalone articles. 3)- content not supported by a reference definitely fits the definition of Wikipedia:original research such as 66 Street, Edmonton#North Edmonton with content "at a recently constructed overpass...". The reference map, and other maps, would not show "a new bridge" so this is OR.

I am not going to look any further as the WikiProject Canada Streets "Notability guidelines" states:

Streets are generally not notable. To be considered notable, the street should pass one of the following criteria:
The street has become synonymous with an industry or organization (Bay Street),
The street was the site of an important historical event,
The street has been mentioned by name in a major motion picture, song, television show, or other mainstream media (De Grassi Street, for example)
The street has been the subject of a documentary or an article in a major media source.
It is otherwise notable, as described at Wikipedia:Notability.

Although some of these appear to be somewhat well laid out articles, the reference (if there is one) does not support any content so all of these streets could be listed under a "List of city streets in Edmonton" article. At least the one reference could be shared on the same page (once "View map" is click on within the reference) but there would still be the notability issue and there is nothing notable about a source that just shows a map of a lot of streets. Editors interested in the listing of city streets should try to see if a consensus could be found for listing the streets on the Edmonton article. Even if the article wasn't already large I doubt consensus there would favor such a list and it might degrade the article. I just can't surmise an important encyclopedia reason these street articles could be important.

Conclusion: Any and all street articles that do not pass the notability criteria should be deleted. Otr500 (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Gomez[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio. Interviews are primary sources and dont count to notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reckless nomination. Spartaz, look at the sources in the article again and explain how they can be dismissed as just pure interviews. If you don't understand Spanish, use Google Translate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable here. Fails GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 08:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a large proportion of this article is trivia cited to interview, as in:

"She says, she initially intended to study agronomy at university, but changed to veterinary medicine after being told that agronomists were "impoverished, dirty and brutish."

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hudson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly fails gng. I cant see the awards being significant enough to meet pornbio but even if they were a technical sng pass should not be enough to keep an article that clearly fails gng, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable adult actor; awards are not significant. Deleted in 2007, and has not improved since. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Notable award wins. Finnegas (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian (actor)[edit]

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

Scene award so fails gng and pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No individual award, negligible reliably souyrced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Award is insignificant. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenaveve Jolie[edit]

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

Fails both pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 08:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of notability. Not enough independent reliable sourcing available to sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylynn[edit]

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

What on earth is an orgasmic oralist? I cant see that this award can possibly be significant and even if it were a technical sng pass should not overcome the fact that this blp clearly fails the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little to no independent reliable sourcing. Winning an award in a downlevel/niche category like "Orgasmic Oralist" is, by consensus/precedent, not sufficient to meet the "well-known/significant award" standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Montanabw^(talk) 08:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leilani Leeane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is a rising star award enough to overcome an utter lack of meeting the gng. Sngs are indications of likely notability and where the technical pass is in the case of someone clearly failing gng, the gng prevails. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant prose and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. "Rising Star Female" is not a significant award. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument in the initial AFD. Should have been deleted then, but the closer inexplicably gave full weight to what other admins accurately described as "appalling bad faith" keep !votes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G10. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 10:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list[edit]

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

Not notable. Do we really need this list? If a person were targeted by ISIS it can be mentioned in the person's article. RoCo^(talk) 06:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly on BLP grounds. Advertising a list like that actually puts people on the list in extra danger. Wikipedia should not be used in this way. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more explanatory about the BLP grounds. I am wondering if there is a general principle against having on Wikipedia such religious or political ideology-based "hit lists" or "revenge lists", such as List of people declared personae non gratae in Azerbaijan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP tells us to be particularly careful with adding to Wikipedia articles information about living persons that can be damaging or harmful to these persons. To directly quote WP:BLP: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Most typically, "harm" means harm to the reputation of a living person, but I think the same principle applies to the possibility of physical harm. Having a WP article giving an ISIS hit list increases, in very real and practical terms, the physical danger to the persons on that list. There are also sorts of would-be/wanna-be ISIS supporters who might, upon finding such a list, take it upon themselves to try to kill persons on that list. We should strive to prevent having Wikipedia used in this way. I feel that in this case the editorial value of having an article of this sort is outweighed by the harm to living subjects that such an article may cause. Nsk92 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Shouldn't dignify preposterousness. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with urgency this invitation to terrorism. WP:Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete immediately per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to temporarily restore to allow for merging, upon request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OnStream Networks[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No references. Unedited since 2009. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's no way this should be deleted. It was a real company that played a role in the communications industry in that era. It was purchased for a huge amount of money. Here is a link to a NYT article about the acquisition. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/08/business/3com-in-245-million-deal-for-onstream-networks.html Added four references and formatting to the article. ~Brholden

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY -> WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not spam, and the quarter-billion dollar valuation is not peanuts. However, it seems a flash in the Internet bubble. I would say merge to 3Com since the story needs to be told, but this will never reach a notability limit by itself. Also clearly nothing to do with solutions. W Nowicki (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar News[edit]

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

Just another propaganda website like many that have mushroomed during the Syrian civil war. Fails WP:GNG. Not enough in-depth coverage by third-party reliable sources of the subject. Wikipedia rules on notability say: “Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub.” Sure we sometimes use the website to update our Syria war maps & articles, but this doesn’t mean it deserves its own Wikipedia article. Tradedia^talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tradedia^talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tradedia^talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Al-Masdar News is indeed a new site, but has already been quoted thousands of times by other news vendors including Newsweek, The Washington Post, RT The Independent and The Sun.^[4] I don't believe being quoted as a news source is a trivial mention - it shows a degree of confidence being held. Furthermore, I think it is useful for wikipedia readers, who may (rightly) be sceptical of what they read, to find out more about the sources being quoted. Batternut (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the links from the google search that you provide. Most of the media that cite Al-Masdar News are unreliable sources. The notable media you list, rarely cite Al-Masdar News. There are plenty of non-notable news outlets from smaller countries that are cited from time to time by notable news institutions. Also, I don’t see any reliable news institution that provides an in-depth coverage of Al-Masdar News. Tradedia^talk 03:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Re "in-depth coverage" - see Esn's comment on 9 April. Re "unreliable sources" - I see some Russian state media and the odd blog quoting AMN, but to assert that most media citing AMN are unreliable needs substantiation. Batternut (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used it for the first time today, and sure enough, a reader was skeptical. Linking to an article about the source gives context. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As referenced above, AMN has been cited very often by mainstream news sources. Perhaps it is true that it is cited more often by non-mainstream sources, but that is irrelevant (and maybe, just maybe, that is because news that is called "mainstream" on Wikipedia comes mostly from countries whose political leaders are involved in the Syrian civil war on the rebel side, and whose journalists do what they need to do to continue getting government access). Esn (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. After a comprehensive search, I can't find in-depth coverage about the aggregator. Some !voters above seem to quote WP:GOOGLE search results, but that isn't a policy-based reason. Routine quotations do not count towards coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. Stickee (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (web) is more pertinent than WP:ORG - and news source quotes do not seem to fall under "trivial coverage" as described there. Batternut (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC). Re failing WP:GNG - see Esn's comment below. Batternut (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given above. Applodion (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Alhanuty (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In reply to the criticisms mentioned above, here is some coverage focusing specifically on Al-Masdar News from big pro-NATO news organizations (therefore, notable on Wikipedia): From Al-Masdar to InfoWars: How a pro-Assad conspiracy theory got picked up by the far-right (a hit piece written by Business Insider in order to discredit the doubts about the US rationale for the recent missile strikes), How the alt-right brought #SyriaHoax to America (similar to the previous link, except this one written by the Atlantic Council think tank). Those are primarily negative portrayals, but since they are articles in "notable" sources focusing primarily on Al-Masdar News, it should be enough to establish notability, which is the purpose of this AfD. There are also many, many other instances of simple citation of Al-Masdar news by "reliable" news orgs without any further comment on the agency itself. Esn (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting Medium articles to establish notability? Stickee (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's quoting Ben Nimmo of Atlantic Council's "Digital Forensic Research Lab", posting on the group blog. WP:Blogs applies, it says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The Institute for European Studies have published his work in that field here. Batternut (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Al-Masdar website’s 15 minutes of fame in coverage focusing specifically on it, is about how it made up a conspiracy theory that ended up in infamous fake news website InfoWars.com?!^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] This does not look like the basis for a WP:LASTING notability. Tradedia^talk 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting notability by virtue of a couple of years of being noted, ie quoted, by 'mainstream' news media. Batternut (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Often dismissed as a propaganda website, it provides unique content. In fact, mainstream media often seem to cite Al Masdar News, and dismiss it as a propaganda website at the same time. This is from Radio Free Europe "On August 15, Al-Masdar News, an outlet with close ties to the Syrian government’s security apparatus, released photos of a Russian TU-22M3 long-distance strategic bomber, which were reportedly taken at the Hamadan airfield in Iran." This is from Marketwatch "A second report on the pro-regime Al Masdar News said the attack caused significant damage to the Shayrat air base and multiple casualties." This is from Newsweek: "As ISIS faced the looming threat of a full-on assault by forces sponsored by the U.S., Russia and Turkey on the group's northern de facto capital of Raqqa, the Syrian army's fifth legion, backed by Russian airstrikes, continued to diminish the militants' already shrinking territory in central Syria, according to pro-Syrian government news agency Al Masdar News." The sources we tend to call RS, in most cases pro-western, dislike Al Masdar's pov, and avoid it as they can. But because Al Masdar has direct reporting from a Syrian special forces unit, The Tiger Forces, western (Reliable) sources have begun to use it more and more, and there is no sign of that decreasing. This is a borderline case, but with no question which side of the line we are on. Jd2718 (talk)

This isn't WP:RSN. We're not evaluating the reliability of the site, just the notability. Your reasoning doesn't include any arguments about its notability. Stickee (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a reliable source argument. I wouldn't and couldn't. I am arguing that it is notable, despite a general western media sense of not liking it, and a reluctance to mention it. You, on the other hand, are making an "I don't like it argument." Repeating versions of it after other people's comments does not make it stronger. Please stop. Jd2718 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does relate to notability: WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" where "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic". Batternut (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Esn (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and should be exposed as a pro-Assad tool and propagator of fake news. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This relates more to subsequent development of the article rather than this AfD, but I'll say that even the most casual observers will have noticed by now that much of the "fake news" about Middle Eastern conflicts in general (Al-Masdar doesn't only cover Syria) has been propagated by reliable, mainstream, Western news organizations. In any case, it will certainly be worth mentioning that Al-Masdar's editorial line falls squarely into the anti-Western camp of the New Cold War. Esn (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets basic notability guidelines for all the reasons given above Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Salo, Tapani (23 November 2016). "18-vuotias nokialaiskiekkoilija sai kutsun Linnaan: "Lähden ylpeänä"". Aamulehti (in Finnish). Retrieved 14 April 2017. Nokialla varttunut nuorukainen pääsee juhlimaan Suomen itsenäisyyspäivää Linnan juhliin 6. joulukuuta.
^ Juuso Välimäki career statistics at EliteProspects.com
^ Hurmerinta, Eero (26 April 2016). "Juuso Välimäki: "Kapteenin on oltava pelillinen johtaja"". Jatkoaika.com (in Finnish). Retrieved 14 April 2017. Suomen joukkueen kapteenina toimi puolustaja Juuso Välimäki.
^ "Al-Masdar News -site%3Aalmasdarnews.com - Google Search". www.google.co.uk. Retrieved 4 April 2017. About 5,560 results
^ Dicker, Rachel (November 14, 2016). "Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs". usnews.com. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
^ Roy, Jessica (November 17, 2016). "Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid". LA Times. Retrieved December 15, 2016.
^ Blake, Andrew (December 9, 2016). "Infowars' Alex Jones appeals to Trump for aid over fears of 'fake news' crackdown". Washington Times. Retrieved December 15, 2016.
^ Mencimer, Stephanie (12 December 2016). "PizzaGate Shooter Read Alex Jones. Here Are Some Other Fans Who Perpetrated Violent Acts". Mother Jones. Retrieved 1 January 2017.

Keep GNG, per above. L3X1 (distant write) 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mulan V[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:GNG. Sources found during a WP:BEFORE search provide no evidence of significant coverage that is from independent, reliable sources. All I found were either passing mentions, interviews (which aren't independent) or are wholly about the website/product brand. The article is basically an unambiguously promotional stub. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N at present. The sources on Google are from social media sites and not notable news sites. --Artene50 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland & District Pipe Band[edit]

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD at Dalewool Auckland & District Pipe Band. This pipe band seemingly fails WP:BAND and the broader WP:GNG, and does not appear notable. A search for references resulted in three Spanish-language sources: [17] [18] [19]. The band is mentioned briefly, and only for its participation in the Interceltic Festival of Avilés. There is a lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. ℯ xplicit 06:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting general notability. The prodded version was identical to an earlier version of this article (a copyvio of the band's website). Schwede 66 09:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The daily siasat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Can't find reliable sources other than the primary reference in the article. RoCo^(talk) 06:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. It's mentioned a lot in passing but there is nothing to establish notability. -- Dane ^talk 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government General Degree College, Gopiballavpur-II[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:ORGSIG Peapod21 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-granting institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecf to Vidyasagar University as it appears to be a sub unit of the university. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is unfortunately a common misconception when it comes to Indian colleges. Affiliated colleges are not sub-units; they are independent institutions. Almost all colleges in India are affiliated to a larger university; that doesn't mean they're part of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm satisfied with Necrothesp's explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be our practice to maintain individual pages for these institutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Colleges_affiliated_to_Vidyasagar_University Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above 'keep' comments. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination. (non-admin closure) Dead Mary (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanabo[edit]

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

Article is too confusing to intelligently edit plus there no sources to provide guidance. Violates WP:PN. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a real village.[20] According to the Egyptian Central Bureau of Statistics in the Arabic article this has a population of over 30,000. Quite a significant population center and arguably a small city. The article being a mess is a case of WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. I've reduced it to a cohesive stub. --Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator for deleting this article, I agree with Oakshade's solution. Thank you Rogermx (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a clear keep per WP:GEOLAND which has been proven by user Oakshade. I will close this because the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there is not much more discuss. Dead Mary (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Argument son both sides, but end result is a reasonable consensus that this article does not meet notability standards. There's weight behind Piotrus' point that the sources are largely self-references. The UK Govt blog post is a reliable source, but its Tsuru coverage is a bit thin to justify a Wikipedia page.

Also somewhat discounted Magnotorres' !vote on the grounds of their declared COI. They mention that their competitors have equally non-notable articles: if they flagged which these were they should perhaps be AfD'ed as well, but either way, "other stuff exists" is insufficient as a keep rationale. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuru (PaaS)[edit]

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

I deleted this in January after an expired PROD, and the creator (Magnotorres, who is an employee of the company) has come to my userpage requesting restoration. Prior to this, the article had been speedy deleted under A7 in 2014 for lack of notability (the page creator at that time was also an employee). It was subsequently recreated by Magnotorres in Dec 2015. I agreed to restore the article for a full AfD to settle the issue of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has received some media attention. Finley, Klint. "Google's Go Appears on Brazilian Cloud". WIRED. Retrieved 2017-04-09. Yegulalp, Serdar. "Tsuru open source PaaS puts developers first". InfoWorld. Retrieved 2017-04-09. Also discussed in a book published by a reputable publisher: San Murugesan; Irena Bojanova (1 August 2016). Encyclopedia of Cloud Computing. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 144–145. ISBN 978-1-118-82197-8.. SJK (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Pretty much self-references. Wired coverage is in passing, two paragraphs. InfoWorld article seems good, but the book treatment is another short paragraph. Borderline, but I think we need to be tougher on those kind of entries, we are not software directory. The IW article is a good start, but I think we need at least one more in-depth treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tsuru is at full blast with more than "12K commits". Github. Retrieved 2017-04-12., full opensource and it is a software that serves the community. We are working to improve marketing/notability and we expect to have a great result this year Magnotorres (talk) :25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems you are admitting a conflict of interest, thanks for being honest. Alas, Wikipedia is not the place for your marketing, nor should we promote your product until it becomes notable. Just using a citation template does not make it an independent source to justify notability. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Just to be clear, I really believe we have notability enough to be at Wikipedia. What I'm saying is, we are improving it to not have even that kind of doubt as "notability" is very a subjective term. The intention is not use Wikipedia for marketing, but to inform about tsuru. The same thing has been done by ours direct competitors, would be unfair to be treated different Magnotorres (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be promotion for a non notable software product. My opinion when proposing deletion still stands: sourcing fails to meet WP:GNG notability standard, validated by Piotrus's deeper look in his !vote. Bri (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think is fair to use a judgment for other person just to reinforce you view, would be better to have your own evaluation. The stars in the github are great and fair way to judge notability, because don't matter if you invest lots of money into publicity, people only give stars for projects that matters for them Magnotorres (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the topic is borderline, but clearly the article has a history of conflict of interest editing and right now is quite more a marketing page than an encyclopedic article. I would lean to delete or at best merge into Grupo Globo which apparently is the company? The company article also needs to be rewritten into cited prose instead of uncited bullets, but would have a much better case for being notable. It would help if someone who speaks Portuguese would contribute, since coverage outside of North America and Britain could be improved. Would also need to know the rules of Wikipedia style, and making it into a link farm will not do it. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Can you be clear why you think it has a conflict of interest? Merge with Grupo Globo is not a good way to procede, because the subjects are totally different. Magnotorres (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnotorres: Please read WP:COI. Editing about subjects you are personally involved in–such as your own employer–is discouraged. From what you say, you sound like you work for Globo. If that is true, then many would say it would be better if you didn't edit the article, because there is a concern your edits might be biased in favour of your employer. You naturally have loyalty towards your employer, and your employer expects loyalty from you, but that loyalty generally limits your ability to be honest about them in public–it is hard for you to be honest about their weaknesses, and even their strengths you may have a natural tendency to overstate–if you were to be completely honest about both here, you might get yourself in trouble at work. And this is a concern about the article at present–you wrote most of it, and what you have written sounds too much like marketing material–e.g. focusing on the strength of the project and passing over potential weaknesses. Independent authors are more likely to be even-handed–to cover both the positives and the negatives equally–while employees will play up the positives and downplay the negatives–it is what their employer expects of them, but it is not what Wikipedia wants. I myself lean towards the idea an article should exist on Tsuru (although it is borderline), but if the article is kept it needs to be rewritten to sound less like a marketing brochure and more like an independent review. SJK (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I totally get your point. I tried to make it neutral, including the competitors, the reference from UK government, but I agree, even I working in a company that deals ethically in this kind of situation, would be way better to have people outside Globo doing it. Magnotorres (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This blog post compares Tsuru to Cloud Foundry and Apcera and explains why the UK government chose Cloud Foundry over Tsuru and Apcera. Yes it is a blog post, but it is an official UK government blog, so I think that means it contributes more to notability than the average blog post does. SJK (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Wills[edit]

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

Doesn;t meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not even remotely close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd even ask what you mean by sources. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments for keeping the page are generally weak, and consensus is that notability has not been established. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Chandrasekaran[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Sources available are primary (e,g. [21]) and / or not independent of the subject. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would add that the page creator stated the article is "self written"; given sources could indicate a promotional purpose. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. New information about his career added. His occupation changed to Executive Vice Chairman. To verify the information, check this website https://www.cognizant.com/company-overview/executive-leadership and then click CHANDRA SEKARAN. This website is also added as a citation in the page. --Tigerson1995 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A man with a job in a company. All very appropriate for the firm's corporate web pages but nothing provided or found indicates attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't Delete~~. R. Chandrasekaran is an alumnus of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli.He was awarded Distinguished Alumnus Award in 2008. To verify, check this website https://www.nitt.edu/home/icsr/alumni/daa2007-08/ , check the corporate development awardees part (OR) search using " R. Chandrasekaran ". I added this website in his Wikipedia article too as a citation. He is a top business and please check this website https://www.cognizant.com/company-overview/executive-leadership . There will be six(6) names written. Click the name CHANDRA SEKARAN . When you click that name, an article of Ramakrishnan Chandrasekaran will appear. However, I wrote R. Chandrasekaran in his Wikipedia page and it is absolutely fine. --Tigerson1995 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigerson1995: I have struck through your second expression of the same opinion. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD: I just want to know that whether have you checked those websites that I have mentioned in my sentences ?--Tigerson1995 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they are mundane. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES applies: I have never yet seen a company website that has anything but good things to say about its own staff. Nor is an alumni listing independent evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. These are the other sources that I have cited in his Wikipedia page, open them read it. : (1) http://www.nasscom.in/r-chandrasekaran-group-chief-executive-cognizant-technology-solutions-india-pvt-ltd , (2) http://www.financialexpress.com/archive/we-will-look-for-small-acquisitions-in-20100-m-range/1223875/0/ --Tigerson1995 (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tigerson1995, as you were advised above, you cannot repeatedly give "Don't delete" and "Keep" opinions, only one, which you have already done. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigerson1995: Do you understand that this is an encyclopedia and not social media to post profiles of businesspeople? People must be notable to have an article here. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone who got a good education and a decent job. No in-depth, independent coverage.Glendoremus (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked the website sources posted by Tigerson1995 and those sources are showing true information about R. Chandrasekaran. He is a top business man in India and a Wikipedia page about him is fine.--Rishabsingh97 (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishabsingh97: No one has said the information is not true, that is not the issue. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. The man headed NASSCOM (India's industry body for IT and ITES) as Chairman. Also executive Vice Chairman in one of the most respected IT services companies Cognizant. A query in the Economic times or Business standard will clearly establish his notability. The article needs a lot of improvement in the spirit of WP:HEY. References needed to be added too. Will find time over the next few days. Arunram (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Arunram's points, which if true, would indicate possibility of a decent article given work here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick news check ) shows thousands of hits [22]. Some of which seem reputable. Coverage goes back years - e.g. [23] and [24] as well as current [25].Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person, More than 100 news links are there and as per @Arunram: - ...Captain......Tälk tö me... 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources is WP:RS. I can see no notability at all. His claim to fame is that he's Vice Chairman of a company??? Gimme a break, this is nowhere near passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. He appears to be a good businessman/employee. But there is nothing particularly notable about his business achievements. And there is a lack of major news stories and major publications. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arunram. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no notability to warrant an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability.Winged Blades^Godric 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Havelock II[edit]

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

Only found one hit on Google News and that didn't say much for this topic's general notability South Nashua (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about that location. Very boring one sentence article. Knox490 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Travel Duet[edit]

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

Unable to find anything to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. There are mentions in various publications but nothing that I would consider amounting to significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of depth of coverage. Knox490 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All I Need (Margaret EP). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me How Are Ya[edit]

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

The single didn't chart anywhere and had no success. Moreover, the article in my opinion isn't detailed enough to remain on Wikipedia. ArturSik (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Margaret (singer). While the song fails GNG and SNG, it remains a plausible redirect; no need to delete. Lourdes 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Song from a debut album. Song didn't win any awards.Knox490 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All I Need (Margaret EP) per Lourdes' comment, but I think the EP is the more appropriate target for a redirect than to the general article on the singer. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All I Need (Margaret EP). Page doesn't feature any reliable sources and there's no indication of notability to be found. Redirecting to the EP article would be better than deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Book of a Beautiful Young Girl: Soaked Uniform[edit]

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

A catalog-like entry on a movie that does not meet WP:NFILM as award is trivial ("9th best film"). "Best New Director" is likewise a trivial award; it's one of the Personnel awards at the same event.

No encyclopedically relevant prose and no independent RS sources that discuss the topic directly & in detail. Many pages with similar notability issues have been deleted; please see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against an early recreation if at least a few sources can be found discussing the subject film directly. Currently fails GNG, SNG. Lourdes 02:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No nontrivial reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, sources provided are not WP:RS and therefore do not show that the subject passes WP:GNG at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Samuel[edit]

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

A unremarkable founder of Coinsecure, the article that has been deleted twice. Article is highly promotional, discussing how the subject was interviewed on TV or that he moderates a forum. I'm unable to locate coverage that is not PR driven.

Apparently part of a walled garden, around Coinsecure, as both were created by Special:Contributions/Droidmaxxx with few contributions outside of this area. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - has some coverage (100+ google-news hits), including from reputable sources. He is covered from 2013 as a bitcoin expert in reliable sources - [26][27][28] - and there is ongoing coverage of him up to 2017 - [29]. Just because this is COIN created - doesn't mean he isn't notable.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is unambiguous promotion, and there is also no evidence that Benson Samuel satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As for the links provided above by Icewhiz, the first three are pages which just briefly mention Samuel, and the third is just a Google search: the mere fact that Google shows that there are pages on which he is mentioned does not establish notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the three links to show he was being quoted as a "bit-coin expert" from before Coinsecure- Not to allude to any in-depth coverage in them specifically. Amount of google-news hits (+ going over them briefly - seeing source, dates, and type of coverage) does say something.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided offer quotes by the subject and brief mentions -- these are generally not sufficient to establish encyclopedic relevance. Sample:

"Bitcoin is emerging in India and it would benefit the users if RBI could regulate it", said Benson Samuel, etc.

In past AfD discussions, such sources have been discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: Firstly, no, the number of Google hits is not an indication of notability, but even if it were, the link you provided gives a mere 60 hits, which is really not a lot. You go on to mention "type of coverage" in those hits, so I thought I would look at a few of them and see what "type of coverage" they gave. The first one I looked at is an article about Coinsecure which briefly mentions Benson Samuel a few times. It is on a web site called yourstory.com, which describes itself as a "marketing channel for brands looking to connect with an active network of entrepreneurs". The second one I looked at was on something which had all the appearance of being an equally promotional site, though it was not as forthright in saying so. The third one I looked at was a press release (it used those two words to describe itself) issued by Coinsecure, Samuel's company. The next couple were similar. You also say "I provided the three links to show he was being quoted ... Not to allude to any in-depth coverage", but it is only in-depth coverage which establishes notability in Wikipedia's terms, not a few brief quotes in passing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm standing at 'Weak Keep' - I'm not saying the guy is very notable. He has some coverage + he is quoted as an expert on the subject (of Bitcoin). If someone is interviewed serially as an expert (as a talking head or in print) - then although each reference by itself isn't worth much, the ensemble is.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a new web search on "Benson Samuel bitcoin" and found a lot of news articles which mentioned him.[30] And some of the search results were from major news websites such as this one from Forbes: India's Demonetization Is Causing Bitcoin To Surge Inside The Country and this one from Hindustan Times: A bit of change: Indians using bitcoin to trade, shop, even pay for pizza. So I think he is notable. Knox490 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- These are not suitable sources; Forbes is www.forbes.com/sites -- which are contributed blogs. In any case, the article only quotes the subject, instead of providing info on the subject:

" In 2017, according to Benson Samuel, founder of Coinsecure, “India will definitely look at regulating bitcoin and setting practices to be followed shortly.”

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 April 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. It is obvious that this discussion will not result in consensus to delete. Editors remain free to discuss on the talk page whether to merge in content from the history of David Dao (now deleted and redirected to this article, but this is being contested at WP:DRV), or whether to merge part of this content into a more general article about people being forced off airplanes. Any renomination of this article should occur only after the coverage has died down somewhat and the long-term importance of the incident can be better assessed. Sandstein 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 3411[edit]

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

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

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

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

No. Just... no. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING (and WP:NNEWS in general). This is an incident that has made headlines thanks to a few folks with cell phones and will probably be nonexistent in two months (though my money is a month). Regardless of my personal thoughts on its longevity, it is still TOOSOON to determine if it will have an impact and should be deleted until such time PERSISTENCE has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just...keep. Keep or merge. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because...? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

front page of NYT and CNN right now, so just keep....just keep or merge cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it makes the front page doesn't mean we must have it. Take a gander at some of those policies I linked. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm just expressing an opinion as a guy who's been an editor for a while. It is obvious that you disagree with me. Leave it at that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this is for U.S. airlines what the Rodney King tape was for the police. Of course it's notable. Blythwood (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know this how? Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'. DS (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ^{(just kidding)} Keep, of course, since I wrote it. It seems to be of greater significance and is likely to have wider impact than, say, the United_Breaks_Guitars incident. I didn't place it in the main UA page in keeping with convention to have incidents on separate pages. See also WP:RAPID. inks ^talk 02:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with you sandboxing this for a few weeks to see if it really does turn into more than a flash-in-the pan headline grabber. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is more able to develop if people can collaborate outside a single users' sandbox. Why not just re-nominate on AfD after a few weeks? inks ^talk 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The fact that United (or Republic Airline) broke Code of Federal Regulations (namely, 14 CFR 250.2a) by intentionally bumping fare-paying passengers on non-overbooked flights in exchange for non-revenue crew members makes this a potential court case. C-GAUN (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I keep an eye on a lot of current events articles, some definitely are notable enough for inclusion here, this definitely is not. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS as there is no chance for sustainable notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is a notable event not only in the aviation industry but to the general public as well. United violated Federal regulations by removing a fare-paying passenger from a non-overbooked flight and it may well set a legal precedence, not to mention the CDA officers involved in the incident are now suspended under the suspicion of using excessive force. C-GAUN (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to set your crystal ball down. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, this is not exactly the article itself isn't it? No one is predicting anything here. The officer who dragged him is already on administrative leave as of this afternoon. If I were "predicting" things then I would bring up the fact that the guy is Asian and singling him out is a form of discrimination. C-GAUN (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That entire comment contained exactly zero references to policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell ya. In fact, the whole nomination, IMHO, is unnecessary at this point per WP:RAPID. I also find that the issue has been covered by so many sources that it has become "very likely to be notable" under WP:EVENTCRIT. FYI, Chinese media are covering the issue now and the netizens are calling to boycott United. C-GAUN (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event is barely two days old and you are basing your rationale on rumors and social media reactions. You are what people refer to as a "prisoner of the moment".--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off , try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL. Official state media such as the People's Daily or the Global Times have been covering the event since this early morning, and there is an article on the new York Times about it. OTOH, I noticed that you have been warned about this before. Guess old habits die hard. C-GAUN (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, it may become a significant part of United Airline's history. Sleep pilot (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Historical or newsworthy events that take place only once (such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or the Columbine High School massacre) have to have a significant cultural, international, economic, societal, or governmental impact or be widely regarded as the cause of a notable or historical event. This article clearly doesn't come close to this requirement, and hence I believe it does not need an article on Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not completely certain what I think about this article and this AFD (this incident is newsworthy but is it notable?) but, if this standalone article is deleted then the next question will become if there is editorial consensus either for or against including any of the content at the main United Airlines article (with the cycle of adding/reverting going on over there at the moment) but I suppose that is a matter to be taken up at that article's talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Wikipedia allows the criticism of companies for notable incidents to appear on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Alexf505 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf505: The issue is you need to prove that it's actually notable. So far, no one has here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not the news--what is a front page article for a news organization doesn't need to be a standalone article here. So far this hasn't done anything but generate (massive) headlines on social media and in a few news programs, but that this has lasting relevance can't be proven yet. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DrMies. Wikipedia is a reference website. Not a news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. I have a slight preference towards merging it under a Controversy section on the United Airlines article. Other airline articles have controversy subbsections, e.g. Qantas. But I can also see this incident and its consequences getting big enough to merit its own article. Am definitely against deletion. Oska (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following two comments are copied from Talk:United Airlines Flight 3411 where I believe they were misplaced Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article -- it is likely to have an impact on future of airline booking policies, especially don't delete too soon as I am sure United is sending people to this page to try to get it deleted. [email protected] (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is receiving "significant coverage" by multiple sources and has generated widespread awareness. This meets the general notability standards of wikipedia. Wiki1882 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. Can be merged under Controversy section on the United Airlines article or can be a standalone article. But it shouldn't be deleted.Mingus79 (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep. IF removed, what instead? Ignore the incident entirely? A brief mention in the Controversies section? Even in 5 years time, it might still be hard to evaluate the significance of the incident; it may be eventually a turning point for UA, or a turning point may come later after more such incidents TGcoa (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident has gotten big enough internationally to the point of becoming of worldwide scrutiny. Furthermore, if the incident of the San Bernardino North Park Elementary School shooting is able to have a its own page why can't this incident as well? It's quite a controversial move that United Airlines made which has stimulated national discussion regarding the practices of overbooking and the use of force for civil matters. >>Atsuke (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and internationally so. An article about the incident in China alone has more than 100 million views. It is also the second massive PR blunder at United in just a few weeks. Adraeus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.In line with the emphasis that Wikipedia has I feel that there is a duty of care with regards to maintaining this information for future UNITED passengers and making sure that this and events liked it are catalogued in a fair and open way.194.66.32.17 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is big enough to deserve an article. It seems to have too much content to merely merge with the main UA article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, re notnews, but rewrite and transwiki to wikinews, then add a link from main UA article to that article.--KTo288 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, otherwise merge to either UA or overbooking article. This article in its current form is poorly written, enough to trigger this AfD. But I see some parallels to this particular AfD about a tasing incident, and apply an old argument that "WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"". Also considering WP:EVENT as a more up-to-date criteria: The level of coverage is substantial, the list of secondary sources that easily passes WP:V should prima facie suffice: This has turned into an investigation from DOT [31], suspension (and possibly charges) [32], a looming lawsuit [33], and an issue about race and response from a foreign country's population [34] [35] and all things considered prima farcie passes WP:GNG. Going by the airline incident criteria, this incident has a reasonable chance of "(resulting) in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". Also see America West Airlines Flight 556 and nut rage incident where airline incidents in very unusual circumstances makes them sufficiently notable; to be forcibly removed in such a violent manner where the passenger has not posed a threat to safety is "extremely unusual" here [36]. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailer Diablo, thanks for laying out the case--though I am not convinced that this adds up to an independent article. If that were the case then millions of singular events can be split off from what otherwise would be main articles--think of Trump's tweets, for instance, every single one of which can be considered notable if we disregard NOTNEWS. John, I still think we're in "merge" territory here. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave the article a little work. Let's see if that helps. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - High Controversay. Otherwise, move to Wikinews .--1233^Talk 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1233 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per above or merge somewhere, doesn't pass WP:EVENT for a standalone article too. Brandmeister^talk 13:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You have got to be fucking kidding me. How much more of a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS can you get? For God's sake.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider WP:CIVIL please. Well-reasoned arguments have been made on this page without resorting to profanity. Would you consider striking out your comment and rephrasing? inks^talk 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is hard to be civil when the keep rationales are so preposterous. "Human rights abuse"? "Censorship"? For the love of God.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I follow - those comments by Zigzig20s and Dáibhí Ó Bruadair were made after your "You have got to be fucking kidding me" post, so can't possibly have been a provocation? inks ^talk 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has a paragraph in its proper context at Overselling#Airlines. Truth be told, even that is probably disproportionate. Delete. —Cryptic 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per NOTNEWS. One of the more spectacular cases of WP:RECENTISM I have seen in a while. Long term significance is likely to be nil. Clearly fails the Ten Year Test. This is tabloid silliness that has no place in an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is exactly what NOT#NEWS and NEVENT are advising not to do, rush to create an article just because there's a burst of news. If this is still in the news in any serious manner next week, then maybe there's something, but that's why NEVENT warns not to rush to create articles just on a burst of news but wait until significance in the long-term has been identified. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Mailer Diablo. --John (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) On reflection, Merge is a better outcome for now, with no prejudice against recreating in a couple of weeks if warranted. --John (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - turning into a major controversy, United shares plummeting. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point. The primary objection I have to most of the keep arguments here is that they either focus too much on ephemeral news coverage or rely on some future notability. We're not here to include an article based on its future notability, but on its present notability. Maybe this will be demonstrably notable at some point. But it's then that we should have an article, not now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously stated several times above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Sario528 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I stand by my Delete (for now), I think we should wait about a week, to see how it unfolds. Sario528 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. WP:NOTNEWS, although a small section in United Airlines is good. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very aligned with you: Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Wykx (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is now a major international story. Here in Ireland this afternoon everybody I meet is talking about it and it's the most read news story on The Irish Times website. It is a double injustice that Wikipedia would partake in censoring knowledge of this incident. Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. Possible human rights abuse? Lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge claims of humans right abuse and censorship are overblown, but this incident has caused enough of a stir that it should at least be mentioned in the United Airlines controversy section. Outright deletion would not be ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. No need for an article. This is an encyclopedia not a news rag. Samf4u (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now according to WP:RAPID. Event is covered by diverse sources, the article is already created, and "it is recommended to delay the nomination for deletion for a few days". This is a Wikipedia rule. Kdn1982 15:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdn1982 (talk • contribs)
Keep We work by 3rd party coverage. This has such coverage, internationally too. It's not about one passenger, it's about the lasting damage to United's reputation. United won't get to live this down in a hurry, there is value in us providing an objective record of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Past the point of simply being a "brief" blip in the news. Continues to garner immense media coverage and could very well have lasting impacts. Article is worth keeping at this point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the NOTNEWS position, because this is not an accident with fatalities or major injuries, and had it not been taped it would probably not have become as big a story as it has become. However, the consequences and controversy the incident has caused is significant, so I agree with the analysis that Mailer diablo has put forward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Don't rush to delete articles, I understand the WP:NOTNEWS concerns but this article has already been created, you're not going to get any sort of consensus in the present environment, and we should see how these events play out before doing anything. --haha169 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per NOTNEWS - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't say now that it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Others have mentioned not to rush to delete articles, and they're right. WP:CRYSTALBALL works both ways - see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Give it a couple months and see what happens. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep this event was widely covered which goes beyond routine news coverage. Also notability is not temporary.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widespread coverage, United stocks have already fallen, and this event might lead to significant policy changes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: To simply say that this is "non news" that is simply being posted because of a few people that took videos with cell phones is simply wrong. It's already caused a major plummet in the company's stock, talk of calls for the CEO's resignation and skewering on late night comedy shows. As somebody not far above me said, it works both ways. This should stay for now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stock market one or two days after an event is hardly a good barometer for notability. Look for long-term trends rather than instant reactions. The social media does a really good job at over-amplifying the impact an event has within the first few relative minutes of coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, don't go pulling out one element of what I said and trying to use it. So maybe that by itself isn't a good indicator, but in combination with other things, I thing it has merit. And I'm certainly hardly the only one to mention it. In any case, yeah, widespread notability, as so many others have said. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge to United Airlines]. Yes, it is IN THE NEWS, with lots of coverage, since "If it bleeds, it leads." But no, Wikipedia is not "News of The Week.." Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Tens of thousands of airline passengers a year do not get to fly due to airlines' overbooking. Others have had to get off the plane, and did so without drama, as did three passengers before the one man refused to comply with orders of the police to get off. There have been lots of other videos of people being dragged screaming off planes. It might deserve inclusion at the United Airlines article, since they apparently botched the process, when they could have seated the 4 employees before boarding the passengers, could have offered more money to get people to surrender their seats, or the police could have used more persuasion or simple strength to remove an elderly man rather than somehow smashing his face into something and dragging him down the aisle, then somehow letting him run back onto the plane several minutes later and removing him a second time. Then there is the tone-deaf post by an airline executive about having to "re-accomodate" passengers. Whatever slight coverage the incident merits would amount to a couple of sentences at United Airlines. It looks silly to have this article with its infobox listing "1 injured, 70 survivors" as if it were a plane crash. Edison (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widespread coverage, such an event should be kept to help the firms learn to behave themselves better to their customers. DanGong (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is not moral righteousness.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, or barring that, merge. The passenger-dragging incident is notable, since it sparked worldwide, probably-lasting outrage and many people are now reading about it. It does not violate WP:NOTNEWS since this doesn't read like a newspaper story or a short-term localized event. We are here to serve readers (of which I am one), not what a few editors think. However, I suggest we move it to another page. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, looks like the story has gained even more traction today. Changing from "Keep" to "Strongly Keep". epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now as meeting WP:GNG. In a month's time, when the dust has settled, then the position can be reviewed and a decision made whether this was simply a transient news event per WP:NOTNEWS or whether there is encyclopaedic value. Deleting now, only for it to be possibly recreated if it turns out there is long-term value, is sub-optimum. Just Chilling (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not need an article of its own; can be a footnote in the main United article. This is just another example of a 24-hour news cycle/social-media-fueled outrage pile-on that will be quickly forgotten as soon as the next news cycle/social-media outrage pops up. While it is in the news, its notability will fade in a matter of weeks, if not days. Darkest Tree Talk 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Whether this falls into the category of NOTNEWS or has a lasting significance remains to be determined, and will largely depend on the follow-up and the media coverage to said follow-up. In the event that the follow-up establishes notability, then obviously there's no benefit to deleting. In the event that there is little or no follow-up and this was simply a 24 hour story that everyone forgets, to keep this discussion running will prejudice the likely future nomination in favour of keep, when in fact the correct decision might be to delete. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a hugely notable incident based on the coverage in sources. This is also one of the lowest points in United Airlines history, and possibly in US airline industry in general. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This is easily one of the worst PR disasters of any business in the last 5 to 10 years. Even more. It could have lasting consequences for a lot of people and keeping this for posterity and reference ensure that Wikipedia remains not only a "collection of facts" but an engaged and ever-evolving tool in these times.--DGT15 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event has created a strong reaction from politicians, tv personalities, and activists. This follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the Balloon Boy Hoax can get its own Wikipedia page, so can this. Alexf505 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this. This will go down in the history as an example of poor management of a crisis situation. Many future students of PR will benefit from this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.56 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This isn't just a news trend that will fade. This is one of the lowest points in United Airlines history. If it must be deleted, all the important information should be transported to the United Airlines page under controversies. Gotta edit 'em all 18:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaorn (talk • contribs)
Keep A lot of the arguments above and poor and not based in policy but overall I have to lean towards keep. Public relations damage and financial implications do appear to be materialising which gives this some lasting significance. WP:NOTNEWS actually states As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. WP:NOTNEWS discourages "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" - not major controversies. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep We still have United Breaks Guitars 168.215.131.150 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand why this was nominated but the story has developed rapidly since that happened. The United CEO who was named "Communicator of the year" by PR Week just a few weeks ago is now being criticized for a PR disaster in using the "re-accomodating" euphemism and is now calling it a "horrific event" and promising changes in procedures. And then we have the outrage in China and accusations of racism. This goes way beyond routine news coverage so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news is growing with people calling for a boycott and stock dropping. Might be a delete a month from now after the news dies down. Dislike calls for speedy deletion while the topic is hot and growing. Can't be sure where the tip of the mountain is at. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge to the UA article. This incident is notable as an illustration of corporate bullying!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If United Breaks Guitars is an article, this should certainly be. Czolgolz (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - seems significant and notable at the moment. AfD it in a month maybe and see if that gets supported? DBaK (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nomination, its WP:NOTNEWS, and the effects aren't WP:LASTING as of yet. Yes its awful what happened, however overbooking and kicking people off a flight isn't new in the airline industry. Least this could do is to be merged in with United Airlines#Controversies. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to History of United Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Nom was for lack of persistence, which may have been the case at that time. However, now, with United Airlines stock dropping $1.4 Billion ([37]), and with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton pushing for a congressional hearing ([38]), this flight is going to affect all of us (and United in particular) for a very long time... -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge largely per above, I think this event is clearly notable and has attracted a lot of attention, I'm leaning twords a keep rather than a merge, but either one would by far be better than a delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, this may set some sort of legal precedent in the future. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; it's too soon to decide whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS or not. My hunch is that it will have lasting societal impact; e.g. the scandal was brought up at the White House press briefing; see video imbed in this article: "United Airlines CEO sorry for 'horrific' passenger removal", BBC News. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a major PR disaster and has already impacted the company visibly, and will likely result in a high profile lawsuit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halsey L (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's quite notable. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP FOREVER - This is absolutely an important article for United Airlines, law enforcement, USA, minority, Asian and Chinese communities, viral videos, etc. If this article is deleted, why don't we also delete all the other articles? The incidence has only been discussed by millions online. Regardless of future impact, if it is not important, notable, and persistent enough for it to be recorded for the sake of history alone, what is? Do we have to wait till billions of people are discussing it? Look at the sheer length of this discussion alone: so many people care enough about it! [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|User talk:]]) 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.178.9 (talk)
Strong Keep This is a pretty major incident in terms of PR, and has the potential to impact the company's reputation, stock prices, and ticket prices for a considerable amount of time after the fact, all of which, if it happens, can then be catalogued on the article. (Iuio (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete United Airlines is by far the worst airline I have ever flown with in any terms, but this incident simply does not suffice to be documented in a separate article. Merging this to the controversies section is a good solution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The backlash and response was notable enough to warrant this article 10x over. Aleccat 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, enough time hasn't passed to determine whether this will or won't be notable, but the public outcry and activity across social media platforms has currently dwarfed most PR nightmares of this nature. --Aabicus (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This controversy has been escalated into national and international news and has the potential to greatly impact how airlines operate, regulatory and/or legislatively, going forward. Neovu79 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete or Merge I feel that what is already included in the United Airlines is plenty of information to support the topic at hand. Just because this recived a lot of media attention dosn't mean an article is needed. An event like this reciving this much contervocy is normal for todays socity. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per NOTNEWS and DINC (or merge, whichever action seems more appropriate). While it's definitely TOOSOON right now, the vast number of reliable sources found clearly indicates that this event has already had a major enough impact to warrant notability. However, it still needs to be rewritten to comply with GNG. ToThAc (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The incident is clearly notable, however, I feel as if there is a disconnect between the article structure and the actual subject. The name and structure of the article uses the template for aircraft incidents. However, this was not an aircraft incident, it was an airline incident. The flight number of the aircraft is irrelevant. The article should be renamed to something along the lines of 2016 United Airlines incident. The general content reminds me of something like The Bus Uncle. Note that the article is largely about the incident itself, and not about the vehicle in which the incident occurred. --NoGhost (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: - under WP:NOTNEWS. Sufficiently covered under United Airlines. Also article is misnamed (although that's not grounds for deletion). -Drdisque (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as Wikipedia is indeed a news source. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policies suggest otherwise. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT. I !voted Keep, but this is not a newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- To be clear, however, those policies state "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" AusLondonder (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder – Although this is why we have these discussion in AFD's on articles; to see if articles adhere to being either a news report (or even that of original reporting), or an actual event that has lasting effects for the future (WP:N(E)). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a borderline case but it does appear there have been some real consequences as a result. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Article cites 28 sources. The same argument I already outlined for North Park Elementary School shooting applies here as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this is a significant event in the history of United Airlines, and the effects have already been outlined as notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now), per WP:RAPID. The work (making the article) is done. It may become a noteworthy event, or it might join the leggings incident. Either way, per WP:RAPID, it should be left until such time it is determined what the full impact of the incident is. If, at that time, it qualifies for and is voted to be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, then the paragraph on UA's page will retain the noteworthy information. If it grows into a larger incident (or series of incidents), it may need to be moved to an appropriately titled page (such as a court case, etc). But, as stated, per WP:RAPID, strong keep. 173.227.169.66 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. When the news fallout is over, we will examine the real, long-term consequences. If this was just a terrible PR incident for United, it may be a good idea to delete this article or perhaps move it to Wikinews, but it certainly merits an addition in the criticism portion of the main article. Otherwise, if it marks long-term troubles for United or a major boycott, this article definitely deserves to be kept. Longbyte1 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could merge if deleted. Significant outcome from this event, including major financlal loss of revenue to the airline, calls for a boycott, and it has brought “bumping” to the attention of the public in a way that I don’t think has ever happened before. Extensive world-wide coverage in the news media at the moment.--Dmol (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ps. If kept, needs to be renamed. --Dmol (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the UA main article. This is the exact thing we are not. An article completely sourced to media outlets trying to drum up traffic with no reaL infomation. Embarrassing--Moxy (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Global newsworthiness raising issues of race, police brutality in USA. Fatty wawa (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. A passenger was forced off a domestic flight in the United States. As the nominator indicated, the long term significance of this incident is unclear. Further, airlines have the legal right to remove passengers from their flights. So United's actions are not illegal. A d*ck move for sure, but not illegal. Just a few days ago, a French woman gave birth on a Turkish Airlines flight. This was also "in the news" around the world and covered by many of the same outlets covering this story. My point being, a story appearing in media outlets, does not necessarily make it notable enough for Wikipedia. Great Dessert (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable event, not "routine" news. How enduring its significance will be remains to be seen, but extraordinary nature of the incident--now with multiple investigations and reactions from government agencies and officeholders (and a plenitude of RS)--qualifies for an article, although Merge is also a viable option. Delete seems like an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of policies/guidelines. DonFB (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable at the moment, maybe after it settles down, a redirect may be more appropriate. Ouseriv (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Highly notable news case. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now due to the enormous amount of views the page is attracting. Until attention on the event dies down, the page should stay up. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"'Super Strong Speedy Snow Keep"' one of the most intellectually significant events in all of history. (Vote worth 5 regular votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B413:E935:789C:CE30:97DD:FAF (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThe enormous attention this story is getting makes me wonder how anybody would still contest the notability. How many news articles and responses from governments is enough? US congress even considered passing legislation in response, for goodness sake. I don't understand why it is not obvious to so many this article should be kept.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this is important news event, and the White House responded this event just now.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 04:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this event has received significant coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, huge response here shows level of interest, topic passes the GNG, delete !votes are to be discounted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any admin who decides to delete this will find it (and themselves) on DRV. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant international coverage (e.g. two Israeli sources: [39][40]). But more to the point: has anyone actually read WP:NOTNEWS? Nothing there actually supports deletion: there's no original reporting, no "who's who", no diary, and the article is not in news-report style. Rami R 05:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap this is a lot of comments, and it's still day one. I was originally going to go with a merge, but given that it's too early for a determination and it may keep growing (lawsuits, etc.), I think it does warrant its own article for now, if not for good. ansh 666 05:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yesterday I would've said delete as this appeared to be nothing more than a social media meme. But this is appearing to be a watershed moment in costumer service in general. There are multiple reliable sources going in-depth into the systemic institutional dysfunctions of United and other companies that allow such PR disasters such as this. And an incident that causes almost a $1 billon market cap drop? Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Or drag me kicking and screaming back to AfD in 6 months. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need to "re-accommodate" this article because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". The policy continues, "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". The topic is already highly notable, having many significant and independent sources. Such notability does not expire and so is only going to grow. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As other have said there is absolutely no need for haste. If in a month or two the share prices recover, the controversy dies down, people forget about this and no changes are made then this would be worthy of deletion, for now it does not seem that way. I would note that unlike many other airline controversies this has created public interest in a change of procedure, even if it doesn't actually lead to such it will still be somewhat noteworthy because of that fact. 176.26.30.132 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story has gathered momentum since the AfD nom, and merits a separate article, at least for now. We can evaluate its longer-term significance in due course. Edwardx (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – This incident has been commented upon by multiple parts of the US government, including the White House and Congress. The incident also has an impact on international relations between the US and multiple Asian countries. The "popular culture"-section, while basically inappropriate, shows that the event is being discussed in creative works. I definitely believe the story has gone past the point where WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. ~Mable (chat) 10:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I would say the growing furor and the global impact of this incident make it obvious this article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The overwhelming trend is keep, so let's end this and focus on the article and related articles. Jus da fax 12:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wiki not a newspaper, SUSTAINED, RECENTISM, OSHWAH L3X1 (distant write) 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70-16, no including merge votes. I hope the closing admin recently finished memorising WP, or we will be back here in a few months…L3X1 (distant write) 12:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned by others, WP:NOTNEWS states "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." (emphasis mine). Presumably, a significant current event is one that meets the WP:EVENT tests; and WP:SUSTAINED defers to WP:EVENT inclusion criteria. User:Mailer_diablo has shown above how this event meets those criteria - even more so now than when they first commented. WP:RECENTISM is not a policy, and so WP:EVENT should take precedence. Finally, the reason this AfD is so fluid is that the initial nomination was made contrary to WP:RAPID. Instead of waiting "a few days" as suggested, the nomination was made two and a half hours after the page was created. inks ^talk 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a major international news story, probably costing the company a nine figure sum in losses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Some obvious and legitimate WP:RECENTISM concerns here, but at this point, this story has met pretty much any notability guideline we have. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since this incident will probably lead to significant changes in policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. There are 5 criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and this already meets / could meet all 5 of them. We already have WP:DEPTH, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. I advise waiting to see whether or not this has lasting effects. No deletion for now.VR _talk 14:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This story just keeps getting bigger, both in the U.S. and China, and it is clear by now that the story has legs and is not going away. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as set out in WP:RAPID. The story certainly has a good chance of meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(events) so we should keep for now at least Danofkent (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)danofkent[reply]
Keep Seems to me to meet WP:NEVENT as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Lots of coverage depth, continuing over days, story has legs in many places. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems important. Air travel has sunk to unprecedentedly low levels, with this incident illustrative of how bad it is. Passengers are treated really badly by air carriers, of course with exceptions. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a topic of concern globally and is an international issue. Corresponding language articles in Cantonese Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, and Korean Wikipedia. Discussed by the White House Press Secretary. Sourced and notable information in the article itself includes: Investigated by the United States Department of Transportation. Governor of New Jersey asked United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao to suspend allowing airlines to overbook passengers. United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation joined together in a bipartisan letter to the CEO. Twenty one members of the United States Senate also wrote to the CEO. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton called for hearings in the United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Senators Robert Menendez and Chris Van Hollen called for an investigation. Chicago City Council’s Aviation Committee will hold hearings starting April 13 to investigate the incident. Impacted popular culture debate and parodied by comedians Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien and Ellen DeGeneres. Emirates launched an advertising campaign that parodies United Airline's slogan and Muñoz's previous statements about airlines in the Middle East. Royal Jordanian has also tweeted that “dragging is strictly prohibited.” This is more than the event itself. This has risen to a global, pervasive, international response which triggered multiple invesigations at the local, state, and federal levels of government. This topic is notable, it satisfies WP:NOTE in multiple languages from multiple different countries, and it deserves to remain its own independent article. It should not be deleted. It should not be merged. It should remain its own separate article. It should continue to be expanded and improved. Sagecandor (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per, effectively, All of the above- the topic has gone from being merely being a 'news' item to a national incident with, it seems, additional international implications. Obviously, many news items are notable by our standards, and this is clearly one of them. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 15:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is clearly notable because of the widespread coverage and discussion worldwide, judging from the number and types of sources covering it.--Beneficii (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Despite the vigorous debate at hand, the article for David Dao was deleted without keeping the history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into a proposed Involuntary deboarding article - or at least a section on Overbooking. The incident is currently mentioned in:
1. Contract_of_carriage#Involuntary_deboarding, as well as
2. Overselling#Involuntary_deboarding
I deplore the overlap, and I would like to see some consolidation. This is not an isolated problem, even if it's an extreme example. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annadurai (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than get into the Times of India, the movie did not get a significant amount of major press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. All the references made are related to the article and there is good notability of this article in those news coverage. Thanks. Passion1000 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Passion1000: None of the newly cited souces are reliable and as I mentioned above there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources so can you please explain how it passes GNG? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 06:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the film never began filming - and it now seems to be stalled as a result of Radaan Mediaworks's [http://www.sify.com/movies/vijay-antony-s-annadurai-on-hold-to-shoot-for-kaali-in-may-news-tamil-respBQcgdafhd.html financial problems. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krystle and Tiffany Mataras[edit]

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

Non-notable actresses who've received no substantial coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Smartse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- part of a promotional campaign and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S.N. Sadasivan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/S. N. Sadasivan

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. N. Sadasivan. Despite the appearance of sourcing here, much of it is primary and/or trivial stuff. He may have been a professor but I'm not convinced he is a notable one. Sitush (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is that makes the person not noteworthy. He has 14 publications to his credits and to add the credibility, most of which were done by the government of India. His thesis was published as a book by a famous publishing company and there are more than 25 reliable sources cited to subtantiate the credit worthiness. I would be happy if you could point out exactly what policy of Wikipedia this article is not satisfying.--Challiyan (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Just writing books and getting passing mentions about them doesn't make him notable. You were previously advised to read the prior deletion discussion - the link is at top right of this page. For what it is worth, the article is factually dubious anyway - the sources are being misrepresented and/or the claims inflated. If it does survive this discussion it will need to be substantially overhauled. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence of notability. I couldn't find a single article on the subject in any Indian newspaper. If the subject was even remotely notable some source would've covered his death in 2006. Also, though the article gives the impression that he was an civil service officer, more careful reading reveals that he was only an instructor for civil service exams. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of his books are in notable library collections worldwide, including in Manhattan. Pinging DGG to get his opinion, no pressure. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his Social History of India better hadn't be! Except perhaps as an example of pseudo-history. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books are held in US & European libraries, but not widely; only the 1977 Party and democracy in India has significant holdings (73). (The others are held only by those libraries with a special collecting interest in India, which is what one would expect in the US)) There is no systematic way of finding out how widely they are held in India, and no systematic way of finding book reviews in Indian periodicals, nor is there any systematic way of searching Indian newspapers, especially for older materials such as this, . He has been cited in at least 50 English-language academic books based on Google and Google Scholar. He is not asserted to be a civil service officer, but a professor in a college for training public service administrators, which most people would consider even more significant. The term "professor" may have been used loosely, but he would at least have been an instructor with a That he had a significant role there, is indicated by his having written textbooks used by the college. (Professor may have been used in a loose manner). It doesn't help that most of the sources don't seem to work for me. I am not sure to what degree his views are fringe; most of the citing works are mainstream, and at least some cite him for substantive facts. {(U|Sitush}}, can you explain that part to me? DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only said he was fringe for history, in which subject he is considered to be a caste warrior of sorts. His specialism was public administration and I've got doubts that he has any claim to be a political scientist. I don't think library holdings are a measure of notability even if they were widely held, or at least not under our current guidelines. With "no systematic way" to consider various criteria, as you note, and with uncertainty regarding his academic status, I'm struggling to see why you think this should be kept. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am interested in combatting WP:Cultural Bias which makes information about academics from India and other countries relatively difficult to locate, and leaves most of us relatively ignorant about related institutions and subjects. For WP:PROF and related topics, I interpret the standard broadly. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ride a coach and horses through the guidelines just on the off-chance? I am well aware of WP:SYSTEMIC, given my topic interests, but there is broad and broader. I'm sorry, DGG, but I think you're stretching the guidelines into the realms of "why bother having them" in this case. I do understand the point regarding citations but a lot of those I have seen appear to be of the old boy network variety and we're no nearer to knowing much about the man as a man. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Parrish[edit]

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

Local politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Article is fairly new, sources proving NPOLitician could be produced. If not produced in 48 hours, Delete L3X1 (distant write) 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Parrish has a lot of name recognition in this area (largely due to his well-known father, Harry J. Parrish, plus his own long tenure as mayor) and he has run in two important elections, the very pivotal Virginia's 29th Senate district election, 2015, which attracted millions of dollars in campaign donations and involvement by Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton in supporting Parrish's opponent; and Virginia's 50th House of Delegates district election, 2017, which Democrats are eyeing as one of their more promising pickup opportunities. I think the news coverage of him has been more than trivial. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can put the emphasis where it belongs. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — either you show and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, or he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear the bar because of the election itself. Campaign coverage, further, does not assist a candidate for office in clearing GNG just for the candidacy — all candidates for office always garner campaign coverage, so such coverage is WP:ROUTINE, not notability-building. If campaign coverage built notability in and of itself, we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate for any office at all. But we don't do that.
Accordingly, in order for Parrish to get an article today, the substance and the sourceability would have to be shifted onto his role as mayor of Manassas — and even then, Manassas is not large enough that he would get an automatic presumption of notability for that in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass, so there aren't grounds for an automatic "keep because mayor" either. I'm willing to withdraw this if the substance and the weight sourcing are transferred onto his mayoralty — but until that actually happens, nothing present in this version of the article qualifies him to keep it now. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what WP:ROUTINE is talking about. They seem to be referring more to a kind of situation in which an article is devoted almost entirely to the other candidate and then, at the end, says, "Oh, by the way, Hal Parrish is also running." Or when a newspaper has a list of candidates and includes him just for the sake of completeness. That's not what's going on in the news coverage of Parrish; they're covering him more in depth. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how ROUTINE works. What you're describing is what we call "namecheck" coverage, where his existence is acknowledged but he isn't the subject of the source — but that's not the same thing as "routine" coverage. "Routine" coverage is coverage that's simply expected to exist regardless of enduring notability or lack thereof, such as election candidates getting covered in the context of the election campaign they're running in (which is simply expected to always exist for all candidates, whether notable or not, in any election for any office), or trying to stake somebody's notability on the fact that they have a paid-inclusion birth, marriage or death notice in a newspaper's "births/marriages/deaths" section (which anybody, whether notable or not, can get just by placing one).

For a political candidate to be deemed notable on here because campaign coverage in and of itself, what that coverage would have to do is demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. I call it the Christine O'Donnell test, other people have other names for it, but it's the same principle no matter what: the coverage that was available about her nationalized, to a volume wildly out of proportion to what an unelected candidate could normally and routinely be expected to receive, so the sheer volume of coverage carried her over WP:GNG regardless of her not actually having a claim to passing WP:NPOL. But most candidates for most offices do not clear that bar, because the coverage that's available about them is just what's expected to always be available for any person in that context — and that is what ROUTINE is talking about.

Simply put, it's not our job to be a repository of campaign brochures for political hopefuls — our job is to be a source of information about holders of notable political offices, not a public relations database about everybody who ever ran for one. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, by the standard you're describing, Sara Townsend and Elizabeth Guzman wouldn't be notable. Of the three, Hal Parrish probably has the strongest claim to notability, but if we're going to say that he's not notable unless he rises to Christine O'Donnell levels of national fame, then yeah, he doesn't make the cut either. (Then again, by that standard, neither does Jeremy McPike, because he's not as famous as Christine O'Donnell either; he just happens to get an article because he meets WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1.) Parrish did get an unusual amount of media attention for a state legislative candidate in 2015, but that's all that can be said. Parrish probably does meet criterion #2, although barely. I just say that because Manassas, even though it has a small population, has outsized importance historically and culturally, and because of its status as the seat of Prince William County, one of the more important northern Virginia counties.

(Speaking of campaign brochures, most of the articles for incumbent state politicians read like campaign brochures, because the politicians' supporters seem to be more active in editing those articles than their detractors. So if the goal was to avoid having a bunch of articles with a spammy tone, Wikipedia fell short. Hopefully the articles about districts will allow for some more balanced coverage.) N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I did specify above that Parrish may be able to be deemed notable per WP:NPOL #2, if the balance of substance and sourcing can be shifted onto his mayoralty of Manassas rather than his candidacy for the state legislature. The city isn't large enough that being its mayor would get him an automatic keep just on the basis of one or two sources that nominally confirmed that he held the mayoralty — but if an article about a mayor has a reasonable amount of substance and sourcing, then the size of the city is no longer relevant to his includability. The city size test for a mayor only applies when we're having to judge the improvability prospects of an article that isn't adequate in its current state — if an article about a mayor has genuinely solid substance and sourcing, however, then the size of the city doesn't actually matter anymore. So yes, there is a chance of this article becoming keepable, if it's revised into a reasonably substantive article that actually contains and sources meaningful content about his term as mayor, instead of just stating that he was a mayor and then going on to primarily be about other things that have nothing to do with that. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. As Bearcat says, it might be possible to put together a sufficient article with sources from earlier in his career. We would need secondary sources for his birth, education, and so forth. And, well, more. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone upgrades it. However, article creator and other Parrish supporters are cautioned to be careful what they wish for. If article stays, Democrats will have an equal right to edit, and anything oppo can properly source will be on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of an inclusionist than a Parrish supporter. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is name-checked in a CNN article and a Newsweek article, but has little coverage independent of his electoral campaigns. In addition, Manassas, Virginia is a council-manager form of government, and is less than 50,000 in population, two markers that do not lead to the presumption of notability under WP:POLITICIAN. --Enos733 (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Parrish gets elected to the House of Delegates he will be notable, until then he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in French television[edit]

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

List of years in French television

Extended list of individual articles.

Quick recap: Previous relevant ANI thread is here. In a nutshell one user mass created almost a thousand mostly empty copy/paste articles, with the only content usually an indiscriminate list of trivia about that year, lots of red links, a smattering of blue links, and otherwise copy/paste headers for empty sections with Template:Empty section.

Consensus at ANI seemed to be that these should not be taken care of in an orbital nuclear fashion, and should be taken to AfD instead. So this is round two, and a follow up to the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Israeli television, which resulted in a consensus of delete.

Note that per the ANI thread some of the YEAR in French television articles have already been deleted per a discussion on IRC. Also note that there are definitely articles out there which follow a similar format, such as 2010 in American television, but for which there actually has been substantial content added. These mostly or entirely appear to be creations by other users while creations by this user in particular seem to all or nearly all be mostly empty articles created en masse and in many cases, have languished in main space for years without any substantive content. TimothyJosephWood 14:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Unlike what I saw of the Israeli television pages, these are not mostly empty. These are not gems, but the basic format is workable, as is some of the content. I don't really understand including a list of television shows that aired in each year in which they aired, as though these pages operate together as a cohesive timeline rather than discrete lists, but things like years notable shows began and ended seem possibly useful, and maybe even television "events" as determined by coverage in reliable sources. As I think there could be a case for LISTN/SALAT, the major problems seem to be that they need more work and they were created (in whole or large part) by the same user. These don't seem like issues that require deletion. Most of the issues present, concerning, say, section headings, the organization of the pages, etc. are part and parcel of the "years"-based articles in general, and the general appropriateness of the format is, I think, better dealt with in a different forum. Another idea might be to combine the various YYYY in COUNTRY television into a single YYYY in television list. If the United States (or other countries with a great deal of television cultural output) becomes too dominant, that one could be spun out with the rest remaining. Would be tedious to do the combining, indeed, but thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article serves a useful purpose.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments expressed by Rhododendrites and also for the fact that the very existence of such year-by-year individual entries, Wikipedians knowledgeable in TV history have an incentive to expand these entries. France is one of the world's leading nations in TV presentation and the key provider of programming for the entire French-speaking world. In their present state, these articles are woefully underpopulated but, given the opportunity to grow, have the potential to develop into major multilevel entries, expressing entire social and political histories of their time. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Noida. Alternative accepted by nom. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JBM Global School, Noida[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Winged Blades^Godric 14:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added an infobox with the information from India's CBSE. The school is registered as a senior secondary school, so they are permitted by the board to enroll students up to 12th grade. The web site offers enrollment to 11th grade. According to CBSE, they have students up to 8th grade (this may be out of date). It seems they intend to offer a complete range from 2.5-year-old to high school graduation, but it is a fairly new school. Like many school AfDs, it's difficult to judge the notability without local language and access to offline sources, but the school is verifiable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noida, as the government source only confirms enrollment to Grade 8. See no need to delete as redirecting these has been the standard practice for years, and I see nothing in the recent RfC that suggests a change to that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:--A school redirected to a city? Am not too comfortable with that!Winged Blades^Godric 08:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for the history. Schools. below the secondary level tend to be redirected to either the educational authority or the municipality if they are not notable in some way. I'm also fine personally with a redirect to a list. I don't see anything in the recent RfC to suggest that the standard practice here should be discontinued. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harlem's American Gangster. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love Me No More (Jim Jones Song)[edit]

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

The material in this article might be better used in the article about the singer. Neither reference link produced a valid resource, but the article doesn't seem to fit the notability criteria for songs anyway. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly has not received the coverage required to meet WP:NSONG. Redirect to Harlem's American Gangster. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harlem's American Gangster per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 15:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javara[edit]

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

No sources found for this place in Mathura district. The article was previously undeleted claiming notability in the reason, but I do not think the place is actually notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The article is bad, but this place definitly exists. Its a pretty large village/town in the Mathura district, its located here on Google maps. Here is an article in the Deccan Chronicle which mentions it, and here is another (similar) one in the The Siasat Daily. Here the data on this village in the 2011 Census of India which has been conducted by the Indian government (Official raw census data is here in an xls file). If you google it you find more mentions of it, eg here are some kind of police station reports (?) listed which also mention the village. It fulfills the criteria laid out in the WP:GEOLAND guideline. It is a populated legally recognized place (~13,000 inhabitants) and the existence is confirmed by the mentions in multiple news outlets as well as official Indian government sources. Its true the article is in a bad state, but thats no reason for deletion. The topic is clearly notable by our criteria and therefore should be kept. Dead Mary (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied it up a bit but its still a stub. Would probably need some locals and/or Urdu/Hindi speakers which are the local languages there. Dead Mary (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dead Mary. Real verified and official population center. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unquestionably satisfies WP:GEOLAND, and thanks to Dead Mary for the cleanup and locating sources. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No dispute here per WP:GEOLAND. Nom seems to have failed to perform WP:BEFORE which states "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Ulster[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Article created by now banned sockpuppet. Nikki♥311 00:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 00:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, has received coverage in many national and international sources: ITV [41] ESPN [42] Irish Mirror: [43] and two from the Belfast Telegraph: [44] [45]. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's significant coverage. The first two sources have one sentence each about Pro Wrestling Ulster. The first Belfast Telegraph article is about a wrestler from Ulster, not the promotion, and doesn't mention the promotion at all. The second is about a wrestler who trained there but not about the promotion itself. The Irish Mirror article mentions the promotion quite a bit, but its apparently a tabloid so possibly not "reliable". Nikki♥311 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this. For the love of god, you have been going round and trying to delete all my pages. I want justice. What's the main reason for it being took down anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyisrhoode (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Don't delete it, class wee page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyisrhoode (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo content that lacks sufficient notability; lacks sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:NCORP.LM2000 (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zumbi (wrestler)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Article created by now blocked sockpuppet. Nikki♥311 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG 86.3.174.49 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient available sources to establish notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. Withdrawing from a WWE tournament is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Yosh[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. BLP article with list of references which are either written by him, or mention him as an entrepreneur. Insufficient primary or secondary strong sources to satisfy BLP. scope_creep (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pham[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Previously speedily deleted as self-promotion; the deleted article was largely created by User:Peterpham1 and User:C050881. Since the article had existed for several years before being speedily deleted, I believe it would be better to bring it to a full discussion now. (I have verified, by undeleting the last revision before deletion, that the new version of the article is nearly the same as the deleted one with just cosmetic changes.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also WP:NOTPROMO - the article is so bad that IMO it is still G11 worthy. SmartSE (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has been interviewed a few times. Couldn't find anything substantive in a source check in addition to what is in the article (though did find plenty of other Peter Phams - including one on the Atlantic Council - not him). Article is an advert.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Icewhiz mentioned, once you wade through the bazillion other 'Peter Phams' out there, there really isn't any coverage of this one to establish notability. Doesn't meet author or general biography notability guidelines either. For what it's worth, reads like promotional fluff.--Jack Frost (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Swarm ♠ 06:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PanJam[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and reads like an advertisement. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panjam is a momentous achievement in advancing the culture associated to the steelpan movement that originated in Trinidad and Tobago. It is the first time that the steelpan had been render in Virtual reality. Also the virtual museum is very impressive when you think that no known physical space like this exists in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingole (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will soon be an important part of the history of Trinidad and Tobago. Steel pan has for a long time been a proud aspect and being one of the first Virtual Reality experinces coming out of the Caribbean is historic. People from all over the world will be able to experience a real part of our culture through this experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristal252525 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) SPI sock blocked Swarm ♠ 03:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Are the two above users the same person? They are both new accounts with only a few edits that are directly related to PanJam. Just wondering.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bertazzoni-Italia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot locate enough in-depth reliable sources to indicate it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. (GBooks, Google, GNews, even archive.org were checked and found wanting). Previous AfD 9 years ago closed as no consensus with most opinions swinging delete but a few arguing for keep. One keep !voter from previous discussion provided a source from the Dallas News but it's dead, even on archive.org, so there's no way to tell what it said and whether it was in-depth. I also can't find the source mentioned on the page, (so again no way to tell if it's in-depth or just a mention) although I'm willing to admit I could just have weak Google-fu. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic update client[edit]

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

Unreferenced orphan stub. Online results are advertisements. Unreferenced since 2007. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this fails the notability test as there are no independent reliable sources to support the claims in the article. This also had WP:CHANCE and I think it is time it is deleted. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 04:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems just a definition from 2004? Not even close. W Nowicki (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Little to no sourcing showing she passes WP:GNG, what does exist is tabloid-esque coverage that doesn't pass WP:RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Dyonne[edit]

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

Only junior pageant wins, temporary tabloid coverage due to a scandal Atlantic306 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Details of other pageant wins have been added but seem minor pageants. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has claimed only junior pageant wins which is false, and referencing included from mainstream newspapers and not tabloid scandal as suggested. It should be noted that the page is still being developed and to nominate a page for deletion within 24 hours of being created, defies logic and goes against the principals of why wikipaedia ws created for. Furthermore the nominator is not an authority in terms of knowledge of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekhaya2000 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost no references online. a couple articles where she is mentioned in passing. a couple blogs where source appears to be Facebook. does not meet notability criteria.Glendoremus (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible RS coverage as a model. Main RS coverage comes from alleged relationship with a prominent rapper. This is a biography of one event with any biographical depth largely unsourced. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOW: No notability even for one event and potentially libelous. Coverage concerning supposed breakup scandal is about the principles involved (“Stunner” and Olinda) and mention of "the possibility" of some person named Dionne, which was and is still confused with Dion Chasa, and is speculation at best. "The Standard" reference "claims" Dyonne Tafirenyika to be "unmasked" as the real mistress but only makes unsubstantiated assertions. This is tabloid reporting, The "Pressreader" reference from "The Harold (Zimbabwe)" is titled Makaye in international beauty glory and is more credible for advancing that pageant participants are internationally recognized as models than notability of the subject. The reference Pindula is still about Stunner and Olinda. The Zimbuzz reference does not support a Cyclone Dyonne but is a list of participants of a "Zimbabwe Models Award" presentation and the closest name to Dyonne Tanaka Tafirenyika on the list is Deyonne Tafirenyika, that may or may not even be the right person.

- Article title name:Cyclone Dyonne joins other titles such as Cyclone Jasmine, Cyclone Alessia, Cyclone Tasha, Cyclone Althea, and many others, EXCEPT; this article title has no source for the name and is certainly not about a tropical storm. We can not change the title of Donald Trump to "The Idiot" because he might have been referred to as such in a reference.
- We have the wrong title name, that is certainly ambiguous anyway, tabloid references, and an article without a lead, because the small amount of content (one good paragraph at best) was separated into one line sections (one section with a line and a half) that is so confusing that a lead can not be formulated from content. I have just spent more time researching a non-notable and wrongly titled article, using almost as much content doing so as the article currently supports, to show there is nothing notable about a fictitious tropical storm named Cyclone Dyonne. IF more editors could be active when these articles are created they would be speedily deleted and the creators reprimanded for creating potentially libelous wanna-be pseudo-biographies, because I have given evidence why the article should be immediately deleted. Does anyone else not see that a jilted ex- calling someone a name, and an article being created from this, as libelous? Is this not a great example of how not to have and allow horribly named and referenced BLP articles (the references can't even figure out the right name), that in this case violate other policies and guidelines, on Wikipedia. Someone should blank this article until it is deleted. Otr500 (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Shunsuke Sato[edit]

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

The article Issac Shunsuke Sato was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Issac_Shunsuke_Sato) but was speedily deleted under G7, probably because the author blanked it to create this article which is virtually identical, but with the name spelled differently. The same problems apply: Searches find absolutely no RS that verify either the content of the article or the notability of this person. I fear some elements may be fabricated. The article contains seven "sources," none of which help verify the main elements of article. #1 does not even mention the individual. Two does, but it is not an independent RS and only might confirm he is vice principal of some business college in Nepal, itself not inherently notable. #3 is now delinked but originally it was his Facebook page. Sources 4 to 7 are odd in that they are about subjects totally irrelevant to the individual in question and seem tacked on: #4 is about the architecture of the Diet Building; #5 is about changes in government structure in Japan in the 2000s; #6 is a book about recent Japanese documentary; and #7 is actually a fiction film based on Yukio Mishima. None confirm his relation to Cambridge or the Anglican Church--or help us understand how he is supposedly "one of the leaders in the field of academia within the Anglican community." Note that on the former talk page, the editor who started the page admitted he/she is an employee of this person. There are thus serious WP:COI issues. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Should be speedily deleted, but an editor declined CSD. Michitaro (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he really was (or had been) a bishop then he would be notable, but zero non-WP ghits suggests a possible hoax. St Anselm (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- one of the links indicates that he is Vice-Principal of Central College of Business Management in Nepal, on which we have no article. That also indicates he is "Revd". The link to him being a bishop is a Facebook page which is not RS. The Vice-Principal of a Tertiary college might merit keeping as an ACADEMIC, but I would expect there to be a WP page on the college first. Not a pure HOAX, but NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Salo, Tapani (23 November 2016). "18-vuotias nokialaiskiekkoilija sai kutsun Linnaan: "Lähden ylpeänä"". Aamulehti (in Finnish). Retrieved 14 April 2017. Nokialla varttunut nuorukainen pääsee juhlimaan Suomen itsenäisyyspäivää Linnan juhliin 6. joulukuuta.

[2] Juuso Välimäki career statistics at EliteProspects.com

[3] Hurmerinta, Eero (26 April 2016). "Juuso Välimäki: "Kapteenin on oltava pelillinen johtaja"". Jatkoaika.com (in Finnish). Retrieved 14 April 2017. Suomen joukkueen kapteenina toimi puolustaja Juuso Välimäki.

[4] "Al-Masdar News -site%3Aalmasdarnews.com - Google Search". www.google.co.uk. Retrieved 4 April 2017. About 5,560 results

[usnews-5] Dicker, Rachel (November 14, 2016). "Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs". usnews.com. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved November 27, 2016.

[latimes-6] Roy, Jessica (November 17, 2016). "Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid". LA Times. Retrieved December 15, 2016.

[washingtontimes-7] Blake, Andrew (December 9, 2016). "Infowars' Alex Jones appeals to Trump for aid over fears of 'fake news' crackdown". Washington Times. Retrieved December 15, 2016.

[mj-8] Mencimer, Stephanie (12 December 2016). "PizzaGate Shooter Read Alex Jones. Here Are Some Other Fans Who Perpetrated Violent Acts". Mother Jones. Retrieved 1 January 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]