Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 April	14 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 no consensus to delete. Despite heavy participation, most !votes were of the WP:INTERESTING/WP:NOTINTERESTING variety. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon–Madrid high-speed rail line[edit]

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

As was done prior to prod, searches turned up very little regarding this now defunct project. Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a saying that "success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan." I think it is going to be hard to find a lot of good sources/citations for this proposed project which appears to have been a half-baked proposal. Reader interest in something that will probably never be built (at least in their lifetimes) will also be low. So the cost/benefit ratio in terms of creating a decent article is very low. Knox490 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't seem to violate policy and it has historical interest. LuizdeO (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Partially defuct project, part of bigger EU project that may in future be completed. Also historical interest, cant see how it violates policy? --Rockysantos (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sermonise) 18:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary. Defunct projects are of interest: what went wrong? How are people to learn if Wikipedia does not remember the past for them. There ought to be a list-article of defunct high-speed rail projects if there is not one yet. If there is such a list, and some editor makes the effort to merge the content of this article, then they can redirect this article to the appropriate row in the list-table. No AFD is needed for such sensible mergers. --do ncr am 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:32, 20 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} 17:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International[edit]

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

Delete and salt . Promotion of a nonnotable pageant. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, more references could potentially redeem. As far as the article itself, the only notable references I saw in the article were CNN/People and those articles used unflattering titles related to Miss Iceland's body weight. Also, even though the pageant was held in the USA, I found a lack of American news coverage from mainstream sources. But the article could potentially be a keep as Google News listed a number of notable newspaper references in non-American/European countries and it is an international pageant (Times of India, etc.).[1] Also, on the positive side, I googled the pageant's name and found a ton of search results (About 1,690,000 results).[2] The beauty pageant appear to have a following as some of its YouTube videos have high view counts (tens of thousands of views). For example, its main video for 2016 has over 170,000 views.[3] But that could merely be due the nature of the video (swimsuit competition). Its Facebook page has over a million likes, but in these days of reports of fake likes, this doesn't carry a lot of weight. Knox490 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt due to persistent promotionalism. No indications of notability or importance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt per Exemplo347. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 11:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the souces failing to indicate notabilty: they are either passing mentions, in the contaxt of the models, or SPS / WP:PRIMARY. Either way, mass failure of WP:GNG requirements. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt for not being notable, only trying to use Wikipedia to create notability (and also delete and salt all lists, templates and other fancruft that derive from it...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Beautipedia. L3X1 (distant write) 14:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 19:14, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakesha Woods[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Sources indicate that the extent of being an artist is performing in small local events such as in restaurants, Enjoy Life Magazine appears to be a publication with no evidence of notability itself, and "advocate" is so vague a term as to be meaningless, not to mention that the source it cites doesn't even mention the subject. The remainder of the sources are either primary or are for background information that has no direct connection to the subject. Additionally, it seems worth noting that the article's creator, Mediasource (talk · contribs), shares a name with PR agency MediaSource. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject lacks clear notability. Source mentions are incidental or promotional. Blackguard 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. Give her another chance if she meets notability requirements. She wrote a sincere and polite letter for inclusion so I think we should give her a second chance, but she needs to look up Wikipedia's notability standards and meet the requirements. Knox490 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Lakesha Woods[edit]

Hello - just wanted to take a moment to respond to your concerns about my article. Lakesha Woods is a published author, spoken word artist and editor-in-chief of a nationally known publication that has a strong presence in the African American community. My user name may be similar or the same as a PR company, but it is just a username and I am not affiliated with any PR companies, and I stand to gain nothing at all from creating a Wikipedia page for Lakesha Woods. I follow urban entertainment and magazines.

Lakesha Woods has interviewed, musicians, entertainers, and reality TV stars who are very relevant in television and entertainment. The citations are to published interviews from third parties that interviewed Lakesha Woods - not and affiliated with her. Many of the artists and entertainers that she has interviewed are included in Wikipedia.

Cover stories on famous people such is Tyrese, Momma Dee (a reality star included in Wikipedia) celebrity chef Charles Mattocks who was also on Dr. OZ. I would have never known about some people if I wasn't following her work. Images where also included to show proof that she has interviewed nationally and internationally recognized individuals. Rather than be biased based on personal lack of knowledge of the individual let's see if we can give other users a chance to contribute and improve the article. I added as many citations as I could. There is so much online about her and I chose the content and interviews that I personally listened to. What can we do to make this better? I do believe that if her page is deleted it will continue to be added because she is continuously gaining recognition in urban media outlets all over.

I also don't understand why would you make a comment about my username. Aren't we allowed to make up names to protect our identity as contributors? If I had known that having a name similar to a company would be a problem I would have added my name. Please explain, or advise because it took me a very long time to create that article and I would not want to contribute again under this username if that is going to be a concern again in the future.

Mediasource (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediasource (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediasource (talk • contribs)

Notability of Lakesha Woods Response To: Blackguard[edit]

Greetings Blackguard, I'd like to address your request to delete my article on Lakesha Woods. There were over 25 citations listed and in my opinion, when a public figure has the attention of the media and they are contributing to society in a positive way, they are newsworthy and worth remembering. Granted most people in today's society become famous with little or no effort and without doing anything positive at all.

The citations are not promotion, but they are references to show where Lakesha Woods has been mentioned in news as one or all of the following:

An author
Editor of a magazine
Spoken Word Artist
Entertainment Journalist

Lakesha Woods has interviewed, musicians, entertainers, and reality TV stars who are very relevant in television and urban entertainment and media. The citations are to published interviews from secondary sources that have no ties to me or Lakesha Woods. Lakesha Woods does not own those radio broadcasts or The Miami Herald and after investigating the other journalist, I found out that Lakesha was requested to be on their shows. These were not paid promotions. With all due respect, if Wikipedia reviewers are going to be fair they shouldn't just skim an article with the thought in mind that you haven't personally heard of the person. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are on Wikipedi that I have never heard of and I could easily read there pages and concluded that they are not newsworthy because they aren't relevant in my community or to my way of life. However, to arrive at that thought as a final conclusion would be an unfair consensus.

Lakesha Woods has covered stories on famous people such is Tyrese, Calvin Richardson, Momma Dee (a reality star included in Wikipedia) celebrity chef Charles Mattocks who was also on Dr. OZ and he has a show coming to Discover Life. Are you aware of that? I wasn't and would have never known about some people if I wasn't following her writings and interviews on Lakesha Woods. I humbly beg to differ when you say that my references are incidental. Lakesha Woods has an identity of her own and when people from Paris are seeking interviews with her, artists and entertainers that have a lot more presence than her - that says a lot about the quality of her work and why she is rapidly being sought after.

What would you suggest to improve this article? As I previously mentioned, I don't think deletion is the answer. I'm just one person contributing and the page hasn't been up 24 hours. Rather than delete it I think we should give other users a chance to contribute to improve it. I do believe that if her page is deleted it will continue to be added over and over again. I stepped up to created it because I follow her work, I enjoy urban entertainment and urban publications. I also follow DJs and saw DJ RWAN on MTV and noticed that Woods interviewed him too. She is continuously gaining recognition in urban media all over the US.

Any feedback you have on improving would be nice. Mediasource (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Delete: Whilst the enthusiasm is brilliant - Wikipedia needs dedicated contributors, on this occasion I can't find anything to establish notability. This really echos the need for reliable sources - which I can't find any. Of course if anybody finds something new, feel free to ping me here and I will glady evaluate and am totally willing to change my !vote, based on new evidence. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (new sources found) | NBC News Citation

I found a story on NBC WBBH News. I added it to offer verification of authorship and her career as a journalist. In the article she is noted as a journalist not as an editor. I also only added the citation behind the word 'author' within the Wikipedia article. I chose this citation because it references to a major news station. It also appears that NBC has picked up this story in more than one areas

NBC KMIR – Palm Springs, CA
NBC 12 – Richmond, VA
NBC – WFMJ – Youngstown -Warren, Ohio
NBC – KNDO 23 / KNDU 25 – Yakima, WA
NBC 10 – KTEN – TEXOMA – North Texas | S.E. Oklahoma
NBC 12 WSFA – Montgomery, Alabama

... and several others, but I only cited the article from the Florida station (NBC 2). I also didn't know if it would help to add the same story from the same network but in different areas. I also saw articles on CBS, ABC, FOX, and some AM/FM radio station websites. It appears that the subject has recently been in the news... I will let you experts check out the new citation before I add anything else. By the way, I have been reading the Wikipedia notability requirements and other things that were suggested. Thanks for the heads up and also thanks to those who have corrected some errors with pictures and other areas that I did not get right.

Mediasource (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Unfortunately, and I really do hate to be the bearer of bad news, the reference you added appears, from the "einpresswire.com" byline and the contact information of a publicist at the bottom, to be a press release, which is still a primary source. The fact that a news organization republished it doesn't mean much in terms of establishing notability--a reprinted press release just shows that the subject is not considered sufficiently "worthy of note", as the notability guideline reads, for the news organization to dedicate independent coverage to, and if they can't justify that, then how can Wikipedia, which is written based on such independent sources? The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC

Is Speedy Deletion an Option?[edit]

With much effort I have tried to find verifiable sources and while there are a number of things to investigate online, I must concede. I do not have the time to research every byline or details within articles. I understand that you mention the article is from a press release, but is it not true that news outlets have a right to refuse submission if they determine that it is not "newsworthy"? Also, is it not true that even when news stations or radio covers a person - don't they usually mention how the public can reach them on social media, make drops about their up coming shows or mention their PR? What's the difference? NBC and all the other sites (I'm quite sure) have a right to refuse to publish material.

Mediasource (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

Although, there were many citations that mentioned the subject as an author, editor-in-chief, journalist, or spoken word artist. I do understand that those who voted 'delete', did so because they do not view some or all of the sources as reliable. One of you questioned editorial integrity, but I wonder, how can one say a publication or broadcast does not hold integrity or a good reputation, if you have not investigated the media outlet thoroughly? Have any of you investigated each source mentioned? Have you checked to see if at least one source has a production or editorial team with submission guidelines or publishing standards? I have, and most of the secondary sources that I mentioned where from publications that have been producing news and online content for close to 20 years. For instance Jazz REVIEW News has a full team and contact information published online, and have been established since 1997. That same source mentioned in a story that the subject is the editor-in-chief of a magazine. http://jazzreview.com/administration-/-editors/

Charlotte View Internet Radio and TV has a physical location that appears in search results with a list of members who are apart of the production team. These members were are also previous members of larger news and radio stations. Apparently these individuals broke away from mainstream media and started their own business. They did an entire print write-up and radio interview with the subject. However, you all have deemed them as "unreliable". Why? These people are professionals in the media industry. They have a physical location, publishers, editors, engineers, a program director, etc.

With all due respect, I find it to be a contradiction for editors or contributors to question reputation and reliable sources when Wikipedia has pages on people who are only celebrities or had a moment of fame because of association. Yet they hold half pages that leave us (the readers) with many unanswered questions. But, they were on TV once upon a time or had a really cool meme that went viral. So Wikipedia continues to hold space for them? My point is that we should only be concerned with the ability to confirm information. Can we confirm the publisher's contact information, the books or magazines ISBN, ISSN numbers, Library of Congress in Catalog number, Distributors information... interviews or at least one interview? Wikipedia even states that the news does not have to be "on going" on the subject.

Mediasource (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Questioning the Mediums[edit]

Most celebrity bloggers and journalists of online magazines aren't working on a prime time show. Most use something like Wordpress, Youtube or BlogTalk Radio as their medium. It shouldn't matter what server the media outlet or company has selected to publish their content or air their broadcast on. Let me add that with the transmission of information and news being accessible online everything in essence has (not only) national recognition, but international recognition, because the internet makes content accessible world wide! We should not place ourselves in position to act as Media-Gods by classifying publications and broadcast all in the name of the truth... to confirm the truth? The truth is verifiable if you seek it. Everyone publishing online is not just handing out interviews and write-ups to anybody that will pay for time. To dismiss the initial local sources seems unfair...

Mediasource (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Standards[edit]

I am seriously beginning to wonder if Wikipedia is as legitimate as it outlines itself to be in the standards. I have been seeing ads online claiming that people can pay to have a Wikipedia page put up or removed ... making substantial donations for admission. I was asked to become an editor by the Wikipedia for another country, but don't feel I can trust this site. School doesn't even allow us to use Wikipedia for citations. I see Wikipedia pages that represent legitimate people, but they are also labeled as an Afd, so that confuses me.

Mediasource (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Duplicate Discussions on other Wikis[edit]

I do believe that another supporter, fan, or Wikipedia contributor will come alone and try to add a page again on Lakesha Woods. In Google searches I saw other wikis with her name and deletion pages that have this entire discussion on them. I believe this forum and the discussions here will hurt the subject's credibility. To have unknown editors debating as to whether she is notable or not, I'm starting to think this is doing more harm than help and that was not my intent. This also hurts the creditably of the sources that have been cited in the article. Even when the discussion is deleted it won't matter, because copy-cat wiki websites have already picked it up. Deleted the page...

Mediasource (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ryan Ruiz[edit]

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

Not sources to verify notability on BLP article. Current reference is a blog which points to a sound file, which fails to play. Some coverage reporting his as a producer, but seems to be mostly social media, and doesn't verify notability. No GBook hits. Fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. Possible merge into radio show. scope_creep (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current single reference is a blog, and as such is invalid. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:GNG --Artene50 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO--Kostas20142 (talk) 10:36, 20 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. To delete at this time. The prevailing view is that this article has substantial OR / POV issues, but could perhaps through moves, mergers or editing be salvaged. If this does not happen, a renomination appears possible. Sandstein 07:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia[edit]

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

Article one of many problematic ones created as a class project, deprodded by a student in the class. This is a POV intersection of two topics that in themselves are notable. St Anselm (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete The main problem I see with this is the title - if the Wikipedia editors started writing articles with titles like these all hell would break loose on Wikipedia. I think we need to maintain the same standard for WikiEdu. I noticed there is no article for "Coal Mining in Appalachia" which I think is a notable topic. I don't think there would be a problem with creating the article focusing on the environmental impact and then others could add to it. If any one section became too long that it started to overburden the article, then we would consider whether WP:SPINOUT was appropriate. Systemic bias is a real problem in some areas of Wikipedia, but I think right now most of the objection is due to proliferation of articles with titles that don't fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Seraphim System (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but salvage some content via cutting and pasting into another article Title not NPOV. Content quality issues in sections. Overtly political in some sections. Knox490 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY sources. This obscure sounding topic is clearly GNG|notable based on plenty WP:SECONDARY sources such as [4], [5], [6] and much more found in the article. Perhaps the title might be slightly simplified by widening the scope to "Env. Justice in Appalachia" or "Health Impacts in Appalachia" or "Disparity in Appalachia", etc., as a subheading of the wider scoped article. However, the topic is notable, so a full article is justified IMHO. ~~Userfy~~ Ask students to carefully read the guide that comes with these courses and additionally WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. ~~It might be wise to work on these articles in a sandbox and bring these articles to WP:AfC for review before attempting publish in main space.~~ --David Tornheim (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC) [revised 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Delete – I am the editor who initiated the PROD and I suggested that Appalachia#Coal mining was the appropriate article in which to add environmental concerns. This article, with its "Environmental justice" title is simply an effort to push the environmental justice social/political movement. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete -there is pure WP:OR here as well as WP:SYN - the real topic of this ~~article~~ essay appears to be "Why coal mining is evil". (it may well be, but WP is not the place to make that argument). Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC) If my !vote didn't make it clear enough, the essay fails NPOV by miles. It isn't written to provide an encyclopedic summary of accepted knowledge about any topic, but rather to show that viewed through the lens of the environmental justice movement, coal mining in Appalachia has been a very bad thing. This is indeed what essays do. This is a "live tiger" in Wikipedia. (see WP:Beware of tigers) We have been calling these articles WP:POV forks for good reason. What this class is doing, is creating articles that view topic X from the POV of environmental justice. That is not OK in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jytdog how do you feel about Free-market environmentalism? Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article and not the views in it, I guess you mean... and I guess you are asking how my rationale here would apply to a deletion !vote, there, if there was one. Well first, it is apples and oranges, topic-wise. That is one of a series of articles within political science/philiosophy, namely "Libertarian views on X", where X is a policy topic. Similarly we have a series on Socialism and within that Eco-socialism, and there are a whole slew of series and articles within them, like those. Those are apples. We don't have Libertarian perspectives on coal mining in Appalachia. That would also be an orange, that one could compare, topicwise. All that said, the article you asked about is very bad, very unsourced and full of OR etc. Does that answer you? Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above in this comment, there is plenty of good WP:SECONDARY WP:RS on this topic, but how much WP:RS can you find in scholarly articles about your example Libertarian perspectives on coal mining in Appalachia? You may believe that "coal mining is evil" or that it is "not evil", or something more sophisticated, but your views are not what matters. What is important is what is in the WP:RS and the WP:RS shows that this topic is notable. If the article does not correctly articulate what is in the WP:RS in WP:NPOV fashion, yes, I agree that is a problem, and that can be fixed. I do agree with you that the article contains WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY sources and some WP:SYN, but if that is removed, we can produce a nice little article initiated by the student(s) on a clearly notable subject. Agreed? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: The topic of coal mining in Appalachia is notable in itself. But when the environmental justice label gets attached to the WP:TOPIC the POV problems can overwhelm calm and rational editing. That is, the issue of "justice" (in the eye of the particular editor or reader) becomes the issue/topic, instead of the greater goal of informing readers in a non-POV and balanced manner. The class should start out with "What are important issues in Appalachia?" rather than "What are the important justice/environmental justice issues in Appalachia?". That way we avoid the presupposition that environmental issues are at the core of the topic. (BTW, my father was born in Northumberland County, PA, and grew up in Lycoming County, PA. Both of which are in the NE reaches of Appalachia.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per POV but please salvage things for other pages--Cs california (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is very important in addressing an important Environmental Justice issue. Changes should be made to the article to make the connection between Appalachian mining and Environmental Justice more clear, but the sources referenced are very good and do point to a clear argument that this really is an Environmental Justice issue.Grayrock (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Grayrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP This article is informative in regards to coal mining and the consequential environmental justice effects. This article should be kept on this page if necessary changes are made to make a neutral point of view. This is a really good reference for a new section on Environmental Justice of Mountain Top Mining: http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=jhdrp&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Denvironmental%2Bjustice%2Bin%2Bappalchia%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22environmental%20justice%20appalchia%22 OrangeRock (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — OrangeRock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: I have changed my !vote to above to keep based on noticing that there is, in fact, plenty of strong WP:SECONDARY WP:RS in the article. I was distracted by the WP:LEDE's WP:OR and WP:SYN and noticing too many WP:PRIMARY sources, and I regret I did not look closer, at all the sources the first time. If the objectionable material and sources is cleared out so that the focus is on the good WP:SECONDARY sources, we can have a nice article that meets Wiki standards. It will probably be shorter. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have changed my vote also - environmental impact of the industry in West Virginia is widely covered, and notable, including non-biased sources like weather.com as are mining methods specific to this region, I would be happy to help with revising the current article Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is a pleasure working with you. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be "environmental impact" rather than "environmental justice". St Anselm (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or to make it wider, Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia. But we generally avoid "X and Y" articles like this, because it assumes a notable intersection rather than a notable aspect. St Anselm (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm: Instead of Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia, how about simply coal mining in Appalachia? Neutrality^talk 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be excellent. As I pointed out in the nomination, that is a notable subject. If the article is kept, it should be moved there - but it would still take a fair bit of work neutralising it. St Anselm (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is one of the many articles recently created as a class project, and one of the few I'd keep. The several issues with the article can be addressed easily with ordinary editing. Nobody can, with a straight face, claim these issues are not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearian at a high level, sure. But this document is an essay that makes an argument. It is nothing like a Wikipedia article, and that goes down to the small details. If you care to, please actually read the ref cited in the very last subsection. It is freely available and is actually a great read. Then read that last paragraph, and see if you believe that a) it is supported by the source; b) it accurately summarizes what the source gives WEIGHT to. I did, and found the content is not all supported and that more importantly it doesn't reflect what the source emphasizes. It also doesn't explain much of anything about the case, what it is about, or why it mattered. Instead it clumsily makes an EJ argument (which goes directly against the ref). It fails on about every level. You will find these problems in lots of places in this document, and the thing as a whole. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a new section to the talk page of the article to point out problem with WP:OR: Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia#Issues_with_Original_Research. I added the most glaring issue of paragraph 2 of the lede. I think it would be helpful to the students if the specific claims of OR--which I know there are many--are clearly pointed out and remedies are provided for fixing the issue. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EJustice: Can you notify the appropriate student(s), TA(s) and WikiED support staff so that these concerns can be addressed? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

will do. Thanks all for the input and help. EJustice (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Coal mining in Appalachia and re-purpose to cover all aspects: historical, economic, social, environmental, health-related, and political. If two or three other users will commit to doing it with me, we could do a good article rescue on this? Neutrality^talk 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EJustice: Thanks for your openness to feedback. What do you think about changing the scope of the article to be slightly (or greatly) wider, given some of the possibilities proposed above? I consider this subject notable in itself and worthy of an article, but I could also see potential advantages of incorporating it into a section(s) of a wider scoped article, e.g.:

Coal mining in Appalachia
Impacts of coal mining
Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia
Environmental justice in Appalachia
Health impacts in Appalachia
Health impacts in Appalachia from coal mining
Health disparity in Appalachia
-- other editors are free to add more possibilities, just add the next number in the list...

Can you and your students give us feedback on this proposal too? I haven't had time to read through all the WP:RS in the article and some of it is not available on-line. Being more familiar with the WP:RS, you may be in a better position to judge which scope has the most notable material, and whether a wider scope is an appropriate resolution, or whether you feel the independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS are sufficient to support a very focused standalone article free of WP:OR on this specific subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a broader article would allow us to include the significant economic issues also both past and present so I would support Move - it is more neutral that way. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have made some edits and pushed the question above on the Talk page as well as through TAs. Lots of great material here for the options listed above and, with some more work, a standalone page. The key to the standalone is documenting the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security and jobs and structuring the article so that that information flows in a neutral tone. The research shows that more capital-intensive (and job-killing) approaches to mining require less regulation to work. This is notable given the public discussion of coal right now. Thanks all!EJustice (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the page is still full of WP:SYN and things made up out of thin air. And the whole thing is still an essay making an argument, not a Wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify specific cases of WP:OR that need to be addressed on the talk page of the article as I have asked before? A number of experienced editors have pointed out that there is sufficient WP:RS that the subject is notable and that the article can be corrected by ordinary editing procedures to conform to our standards. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EJustice: Thanks for responding to the question and asking your students to respond. Regarding, The key to the standalone is documenting the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security and jobs and structuring the article so that that information flows in a neutral tone. The research shows that more capital-intensive (and job-killing) approaches to mining require less regulation to work. These claims will have be made in the WP:RS, not something that can be proven, or it becomes synthesis and WP:OR. Although, WP:OR is wonderful stuff, and I think might be welcome at other projects of Wikimedia, our policies and guidelines don't allow it in the articles--even though there many cases where it is a long-standing problem, and if you see them, please feel free to point them out or correct them. When you say the link is already "proven", can you give us some WP:RS that says exactly that? We should probably continue this discussion at the talk page of the article, where I copied your thoughts and my concerns: Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia#Goals_for_standalone_article --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading the sources or the content that is right in front of you. if you read the content and sources you will find lots of direct OR (like in the last paragraph, there is stuff there that is not at all in the source like "such as black or poor communities".) At a higher level there is a ton of SYN here, where things are gathered in strange ways. What is "Coal surface mining in Appalachia is responsible for 85% of US' CO2 emissions produced from electricity contributing to climate change as processes not only omit CO2, but also clear forests that act as CO2 sinks" doing in the environment subsection under the "Disparities in Appalachia's coal mining communities" section? Why is the "judicial cases" subsection in the "Politics" section at all? Here is more direct OR -- What is the source for "These cases highlight that environmentalists challenge the EPA and other government agencies leniency in providing permits."? As I noted above if you read the ref used throughout the Judicial cases section, it actually says that litigation about permitting is pretty useless with regard to EJ concerns, as regulation is based on law (and is struck down when it isn't) and the law doesn't take EJ concerns into account. The ref explicitly advises EJ activists not to put too much hope that regulatory litigation is an effective way to address EJ concerns. Where is that in the content, that relies so heavily on this ref? Why is there discussion of stream pollution in the health section, disconnected from any discussion about health? (there is a section directly below it for environment) Almost every ref in the Health section fails MEDRS and grabbing non-MEDRS refs and building content based on them is OR POV pushing. I could keep going with all the problems with this document; it is pretty much of a disaster. How this might be graded as an essay in a college class I don't know (I am scared to think about it) but as a Wikipedia article it is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing specifics. For now, I will leave it to the instructor and students and other editors to attend to the concerns you raised. I don't have time to look into it further at the moment. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 20 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amia Srinivasan[edit]

Delete I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON. Shows good potential for future notability but at the moment probably a case of young scholar seeking to boost profile with wiki entry. No books or notable works yet published. GScholar rate too low as yet.

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

Fails WP:PROF and subsequently WP:BIO. GScholar hit rate is perhaps too low. Big things in the future? Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but could be wrong. scope_creep (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the notion that this is WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Wikipedia:Too soon. Top credentials from Ivy League, but needs to expand accomplishments in field. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON —usernamekiran[talk] 09:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for the present. --Artene50 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her accomplishments do not yet rise to the level of being a notable scholar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 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. Withdrawn unopposed. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Morton[edit]

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

~~I don't think Janet passes WP:GNG for WP:BLP. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

As per comments below rescind nomination for AfD. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets Notability for creative professional criteria. Exhibition section of article demonstrates she is a notable artist. (revised vote based on User:Freshacconci feedback).Knox490 (talk)
- "up and coming artist"? Knox490, did you read the article? She's in the National Gallery of Canada permanent collection and has had a retrospective exhibition. She was born in 1963 and has had a significant exhibition record with sources. freshacconci (✉) 11:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I will take a second look at this. I am open to changing my vote of delete to keep. Will reevaluate today. Knox490 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Morton meets the notability criteria for artists, WP:ARTIST, specifically item 4d (is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums). The National Gallery of Canada is unquestionably notable, and having work in their collection is a major milestone in a Canadian artist's career. There is hardly anything more notable than that. A survey exhibition at the Museum London is also a major factor in establishing notability. I understand that the creator of this article has been blocked because they choose a name that does not comply with Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_implying_shared_use. Their choice of name also raises the suspicion that they have a conflict of interest. I'd like to point out two things: 1) new users are not usually familiar with our user name policy and a gentle warning probably would have sufficed to convince the user to choose a better user name 2) a COI does not affect the notability of the subject. I want to believe that this is a good faith effort by a well meaning new editor, who should be welcomed, given appropriate guidance, and retained as a contributor. Mduvekot (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mduvekot: - I didn't even have a look at the author, all I saw was the page for Janet before me. In your opinion would be appropriate to shorten this page? Mainly by removing most of Studio Training and Artistic Practice. That would probably solve my worries. Thanks, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicnote: Can you clarify what your concerns are? Mduvekot (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mduvekot: Simply that at least half of the article comes from one source (which is inaccessible), and the rest are not (in my opinion) that well placed to pass WP:GNG for WP:ARTIST. Although as you mention this person does apparently pass 4d of WP:ARTIST for her place in exhibitions. Personally, I would delete everything related to Source 3 and consolidate the rest of the article. Does that make it a bit clearer? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicnote: I've made some changes. I hope it's better organized now. The only concern I have about the thesis that I think you're referring to is that it probably hasn't been published by an independent, reliable source. But that shouldn't affect the notability of the subject, who has received substantial coverage from such sources. Mduvekot (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voices Breaking Boundaries[edit]

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

Non notable, demography/arts crossover charity. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Charity fails to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Lack of notable press, etc.Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed charity does not meet notability requirements.Dean Esmay (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:44, 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 uncontested --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny McQueen[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines, lack of reliable sources. Has been a stub since 2009, hasn't been substantially altered or updated since then.

Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards.Knox490 (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was ever an article that made Wikipedia look like it was over focused on the interests of nerds and geeks it was this one, without showing attention to reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 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 uncontested --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Williams (Financial Expert)[edit]

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

All of the sources for this article are press releases. I don't see how he is notable at all -- there are many people who are executives at hedge funds and/or investment firms, and there are no sources available that distinguish Mr. Williams from the rest.

There are a few other executives at PAAMCO who have articles as well and I intend to check out their articles as well. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User: ArglebargleIV makes legitimate points. Knox490 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. As per User:ArglebargleIV; a non-notable corporate executive. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads like a resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article reads like the person in question attempting to get more business. Clawsyclaw (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources in article not nearly enough. He does have some coverage (quoted in Reuters in 2011, 1-2 Bloomberg pieces (appointment)) - but not nearly enough. Note his name is shared with a cricketer with many more mentions (1000+ google-news) - filtering down with "hedge fund" or "paamco" leaves very few hits.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 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. We can't relist this discussion forever. There's real disagreement about whether WP:ENT is met, and the article is no longer completely unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Fairlie[edit]

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

BLP unsourced since 2008 (almost 9 years ago). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies. Her significant roles, such as in Little Bear, can easily be found by just searching. A couple of seconds alone verified her role as Little Bear. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is required to verify all of that. No sourcing = no verification of notability. The article is currently unsourced – if it's still unsourced in a week, it should probably be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how AfD works. SL93 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And...really? - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Thompson. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's exactly how AfD works – notability is demonstrated by sourcing. That's the only real way to demonstrate whether an individual is notable or not. And "really?" what?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but the keep voters don't need to add those sources to the article. It's not required. The really refers to your comment in that AfD, which is also currently unsourced. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Keep" voters that don't add sources aren't worth much IMO, especially if they quote no sources here either. If you believe an article is worth keeping, you find the sourcing and add it to the article. That's what I do. Meanwhile, the Raymond Thompson discussion belongs at that AfD, not this one... In any case, you've apparently got one source for this one, and it's no more than a passing mention. This one needs much more to merit a "Keep" vote. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not. I can show more references to prove the roles if it makes you happy. I don't think hypocritical opinions (as in the above mentioned other AfD) are worth much either. SL93 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have also been participating in AfDs for years, including for many entertainers. I do know that verifying multiple significant roles is enough to keep an article. SL93 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not – what verifies that roles are "notable" is independent sourcing. WP:NACTOR does not trump WP:BASIC, it's meant to support it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BASIC says no such thing. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, there's no arguing with that... Suffice it to say, if this is still where it is now on Sunday or Monday, I'll be voting "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I could honestly care less. This was put up for discussion anyway. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment – Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that's one guideline I generally ignore, especially for any BLP subject that's been active since the 1990s. That one may make sense if you're talking about, for example, a lower profile actor from the 1930s where the sources are likely not readily available on the internet. But that particular claim does not apply to the subject of this AfD. In any case, I view WP:NEXIST as basically being like a "blank check" that can be twisted around to argue keeping virtually any article because "there might be sources out there about it that exist..." I'm basically from Missouri: Don't make an unprovable claim – show me the goods. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, yes, you do "need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not". NACTOR is not passed just because multiple roles are asserted, because every actor who's ever had roles at all would clear ENT if asserting the roles were all it took. We've seen people try to claim an NACTOR pass on the basis of a person having had two unnamed extra roles, in fact. NACTOR is passed only when the depth and quality of sourcing shows that the performer was the subject of substantive media coverage in reliable sources for those roles — even the question of whether the roles were "major" enough to count as significant for the purposes of passing NACTOR lives or dies on the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the majorness of the roles. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is the case, then WP:NACTOR and the rest of the supplementary guidelines are really not needed. All that Wikipedia would need is the GNG. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true. If all we "needed" was the GNG, and we had no supplementary guidelines to clarify what counts as a notability claim in the first place, then we would have to start keeping articles about everybody who ever got into their local newspaper for doing anything at all — including presidents of church bake sale committees or condominium boards, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, winners of high school poetry contests, the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got into the media for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard, and me. So no, neither SNGs nor the GNG exempt a person who passes one of them from having to pass the other too. A person whose notability passes an SNG does still have to be sourceable to media coverage for their passage of the SNG, and a person who has media coverage for the purposes of GNG still has to have that coverage be in a context that counts as a notability claim under an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You know I can read what you're saying without your italics, right? SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm beginning the process of adding sources to this article. I'll try to look at it more over the weekend. We'll see if it gets there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @IJBall: If it does, just ping me so I can withdraw this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Coffee! At the least, I'll put up a "Delete" or "Keep" vote once I've done more work on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: I've added a little more sourcing tonight, but I'm still not quite ready to vote "Keep" (though it's getting closer). However, I have found no real sourcing support for Little Bear (TV series). This is the problem with case like this one – the role that you might think would "cinch" someone to clear WP:NACTOR in fact turns out not to be (very) notable in its own right. Basically, children's shows tend to get very little mainline press... I'll try to follow up tomorrow or Tuesday (before the first deadline on this one) to see what else I can find. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:06, 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 03:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject is mentioned in 20th_Youth_in_Film_Awards#Best_Young_Performer_in_a_TV_Movie.2C_Pilot_or_Mini-Series, which is not a significant award (Youth in Film Awards). She was one of the five winners in the category "Best Performance in a TV Movie/Pilot/Made-for-Video: Young Ensemble", which further shows that this was a rather minor honour. "Young performer" awards do not carry as much weight as the adult ones, generally. The voice acting career is not not notable either, and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Coffman. The award isnt much notable, but the subject of the article is notable in my opinion. I think the person deserves an article on wikipedia. Talking about references, if there arent any then they should be added instead of deleting the article. {{refimprove}} —usernamekiran[talk] 09:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles with a refimprove tag on them just because it's theoretically possible that the referencing might become improvable someday. For Kristin Fairlie to get that treatment, the onus is on you to definitively show that the necessary depth of sourcing about her does exist — it's not enough to just say that the necessary depth of sourcing might just maybe possibly exist without showing hard evidence that it is really out there for real. Anybody could just say that better sources might someday show up about anything or anyone who exists at all — the way to earn a "keep and flag for refimprove" is to show that better sources do exist to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with "Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies". Dean Esmay (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What determines a pass or fail of WP:ENT is not the simple listing of roles — every actor who exists at all would pass ENT if listing roles were all it took. Whether an actor gets a Wikipedia article or not hinges on whether she has garnered sufficient reliable source coverage for those roles, but there's still no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete is where I come down on this. Fairlie has actually had some substantial credits. But the projects themselves are of the type that don't generate a lot of independent coverage, so what coverage there is for her is... on the "light" side. In fact, that is generally true of voice actors – they generally don't get press coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been in enough major productions that I consider her to be as notable as an actor having only two notable roles in two notable works--just as long as that laundry list of roles can be verified. If there is any reason to believe the list has major errors, I would reconsider. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:31, 22 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) 21:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Franchi[edit]

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

Non-notable person. This article borders on promoting the subject since there is nothing remarkable or outstanding about this person to meet Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The sources online are passing mentions of the subject and in most of them he appears in lists together with others.. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 01:09, 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 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Promo from SPA. He does have some coverage (200 google-news hits) - but many are passing quotes, and you'd expect most advertising executives to have some coverage - that's the name of the game.... I don't think it is enough. If the article were rewritten and NPOVed - maybe could be kept.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Franchi is mentioned by Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur, CNBC. Techcrunch, Bloomberg, advertisingweek.com which are all prominent news sources of business/tech information. And these are but a few of the major press/business organizations that are covering him as seen by all the links to stories about him in the major media and major business publications, see: http://ericfranchi.com/press Social media experts are making big differences in terms of business/politics/social movements and he is in the upper eschelon of experts as Business Insider clearly indicates in its rankings of Eric Franchi as far Twitter experts/Instagram experts.[7][8] So his impact on business and possibly politics is substantial. Knox490 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all 15 sources cited in the article (except for the dead link, but including the two which auto-played videos at me and damnear locked up my browser). None of them is about him, and at least three are by him 1 2 3. The mention of him in at least one is about his tweets 4 ("He is also prone to a tweetstorm and joins in the debates on the big ad-tech and media topics of the day."). This citation is trivial almost beyond belief - it's just of a photograph. There is one generally WP:RS source: the Wall Street Journal. In that citation, the part about him reads in full as follows: "And many still derive significant revenue from selling premium ads like video and custom content directly, said Eric Franchi, co-founder of the digital ad firm Undertone". I got the impression that he's always ready to be quoted if someone phones him up. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PROMO. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism on an unremarkable businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Calk Horseshoe Company[edit]

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

Subject lacks sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is passing mention in a few books [9][10] and directories[11][12] that prove this company existed, but that's about all we have. At access.newspaperarchive.com there's some brief mentions in old newspapers of an explosion in 1929 that killed 2, a strike that was settled in 1937... looks like a 'run of the mill' mill that was around for a long time. The company holds some patents, but I don't see evidence that they were significant inventions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have to search under its later name "Diamond Tool." Here's an article about it's significance in the sport of Horsehoe Pitching[13]. There's substantial coverage here[14] which also indicates that the controversy over the company's acquisition was covered in the NY Times. Local coverage here[15], which also suggests that substantial coverage in the local paper exists at the time for expanding the article.--Jahaza (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second two are more evidence that this run-of-the-mill company existed for a long time. The first one is intriguing, but it appears to be a personal website, belonging to Bob Dunn. Who is that? If we had a reliable source to back up the things Dunn has on his website, I think that might count for something. The basic claim is that Diamond was "instrumental" in organizing and promoting horseshoe pitching in the 20s and 30s. If that is accurate, then there ought to be independent newspaper, books or magazines that say that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dunn is the author of the article, which is an archived version of an article printed in the 90's in the official journal of the (US) National Horseshoe Pitching Association. There's a similar article here[16] from Canada's horseshoe pitching association. A reprint of an article from Anvil Magazine here[17], more about Swanstrom and the company (for verifiability if not notability here[18], company was considered important enough to be included in an oral history project here[19], a brand successor to the company still exists[20].--Jahaza (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm stumped by these references and don't know what to make of them. Hopefully other editors will have some idea what to say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:59, 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 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep. Bob Dunn is an expert, clearly, it seems to me. This 1998 article and others are reliable sources, IMHO. It is a very long con, indeed, if he is playing to hoax Wikipedia! --do ncr am 07:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the company mentioned by several books (Google Books in the search results). In addition, major/relevant publications mention the company such as India Times and Anvil Magazine.[21][22] The historical history of technology is important because over the long term this often has far greater impact than the "history of great men/women". The historian Ferdinand Braudel in his book Capitalism and the Material Life convincingly points this out. In addition, there is a definite audience for this article given the amount of tinkers/inventors/history buffs, etc. in society. Knox490 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 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) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Valley Radio Association[edit]

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

The very weak sourcing in this article serves only to demonstrate that the organization exists. Searches outside of the article show some additional references, but these too serve only to verify its existence. There are a few mentions in radio periodicals, but they are merely announcements of the organization's fundraising activities (mostly, an annual flea market). In all, this organization has not been shown to meet WP:N and is unlikely to do so based on WP:GNG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found zero news or newspaper sources and no suitable book sources. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 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. G5 recreation of blocked user. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ShankyRS Gupta[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Paper thin bare url references don't provide sufficient notability for references. scope_creep (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 13 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) 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Recycling Project[edit]

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

Non-notable advertisement Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as the page stands now, it is an advertisement, its sources are just advertising its events. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of PEACOCKery as it stands promotional and failing our basic policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:11, 13 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) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faizullah Khan Niazi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Single reference insufficient to satisfy BLP process. scope_creep (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the widespread secondary coverage to show he is a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet basic notability criteria because I couldn't find press coverage on the subject in reliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 13:15, 20 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) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eeli Tolvanen[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a couple of routine sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by being an amateur hockey player. USHL has no inherent presumed notability (he is a First Team selection), not yet drafted (so WP:TOOSOON applies), and has not played on a senior national team (only junior, which has no presumed notability). Yosemiter (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON as well. —usernamekiran[talk] 09:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eeli Tolvanen is ranked 8th in the final NHL Draft rankings, he will likely be drafted in the first round, in the upcoming draft. Deleting this entry now would be a bit daft, as the "too soon" designation would go away in June.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.161.220 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter per WP:CRYSTAL. I would not be opposed to it being moved into the Draft status though and publish when and if he gets drafted. Yosemiter (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought - The 2017 NHL Entry Draft isn't that much further into the future and it could be easily documented that this future event (him being drafted) will take place per WP:CRYSTAL. He is very much projected to go in the first round. No true opinion on the matter. Would send to draft status - same can be said for Casey Mittelstadt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.97.10 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 16 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) 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 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) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Garcia (professor)[edit]

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

Notabilty. Sources are all local and routine coverage of his unsuccessful political career. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN (and WP:PROF). We generally delete articles of candidates created during a campaign. If her becomes governor (or even the Democrat nominee) we can restore the article. St Anselm (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was successful in becoming the Democratic nominee for statewide office in 2014, not entirely unsuccessful. Calibrador (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he already qualified for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just be a candidate in it, to stake notability on the election itself. But this is referenced entirely to campaign coverage, with no evidence that he had preexisting notability for anything else — but campaign coverage is purely routine, because every candidate for any office could always show some of that, so it does not add up to passing WP:GNG unless it explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions. And no, winning a primary does not constitute "winning an election" for our purposes, because that still just makes him a candidate and not an officeholder — and the fact that he's once again a candidate in a future election primary does not augment notability either. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being a nominee for an office is almost never a sign of notability, and no exception to this genera rule is shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the above analysis makes clear, he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. The case for WP:PROF is harder to be certain of, because he has such a common name that's impossible to get useful information out of a search, but the fact that he was an associate professor at a teaching college rather than a full professor at a research university doesn't make this look promising, and the failure of our article to say anything about his academic accomplishments beyond his job title is also a bad sign. Regardless, we don't have evidence for passing WP:PROF, so we can't use potential academic notability as a reason to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 20 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:WITHDRAWN by nominator all opinions are keep. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatla chemical attack[edit]

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

This page is based on unsubstantiated claims and amounts to propaganda. First of all the claim by the Syrian army is that it was a raid that hit a stock of chemical weapons stocked by ISIS so the title Hatla chemical is totally false. the title of the news article is "US denies claim by Syrian army that coalition air strike hit Isis gas supplies releasing substance that 'killed hundreds' whereas the creator has changed it to "US coalition air strike hit Isis poison gas supplies yesterday releasing substance 'killing hundreds', claims Syrian army" Domdeparis (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? - POV is not a valid rationale for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is not POV that worries me but the manipulation of the information contained in the sources and the deliberate changing of the title of the sources to make it seem that they support the information contained in the article. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled chemical attack but none of the sources or the information in the article support this title so as such the whole article is tainted. the title would have to be changed to Hatla air raid (alleged) to be in line with the sources, and if we do that does the subject deserve a page? Domdeparis (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ha ha ha ha ha! Aha ha ha ha ha! The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack is based on unsubstantiated claims and amounts to propaganda. Shall we slap a deletion tag on that as well?!? First of all the claim by the negligent Trump White House report said that "attack" came from the air is totally false, so there's equivalence! The title of news articles change as the day progresses, I recorded the correct headline at the time of writing. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)in[reply]

comment was it a chemical attack, if so by whom? Domdeparis (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment The attack was more an attack on chemicals than a chemical attack although both descriptions fit, it was an attack that involved chemicals so should be distinguished from an air raid as Khan Shaykhun. The Russians claimed it was an "attack on chemicals" in the that case so I suggest we settle on it here. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been reported, and I look forward to being able to add quote after quote from reliable sources that demolish this propaganda. Ooops, that wasn't very neutral of me Exemplo347 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply Ok I get the point but the very title of the article does not reflect the sources. What do you think about moving the page to Hatla air raid (alleged) Domdeparis (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to sidetrack into an RM, this should be withdrawn and the discussion should happen on the article talk. At least before we get a delete vote and have to sit here for a week. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The attack is reported by several RS. I agree that discussion should happen on the articles talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:28, 13 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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demos Direct Initiative Party[edit]

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

No sources. Political party founded two months ago with no elected candidates fails NPOL. May be a case of TOOSOON. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Possible WP:TOOSOON. They seem like a fledgling party who have potential to become notable, but for now I'd say they are not. bojo | talk 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The closest I found to coverage was an internet radio show. They're a very minor spin-off of Ukip in Poole, and though they're registered this isn't enough to show notability. Fences&Windows 14:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and dearth of adequate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the interests of fair coverage, a political orgaisation with historical links within a major party could meet notability guidelines. The hasty deletion of content leads to a lack of broad information on subjects, especially within the political field, which is uniquely complex in it's nature. Demos is notable for inclusion as it is a registered political party, and arguably more prominent than many of the minuscule inclusions that have been accepted, establishing precedent. Multiple, clear sources have been provided. Vintage Macau (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as a matter of fact, zero independent, reliable, secondary sources have been provided. Per WP:ORGSIG no company or organisations is inherently notable and per WP:INHERITORG an organisation is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. AusLondonder (talk) 02:56, 20 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. I hate to make a second close call in one week, but the basic argument, that we cannot have an article unless we have reliable sources that help establish notability, is the most valid of them all. It may be that bias exists--but such bias might prevent the journal from being listed in this or that index, not necessarily from being discussed somewhere. A merge/redirect/different article is proposed, but without a target, we have no place to go. In the end, existence does not equal notability, and without the "usual" measures we employ, there is no keep argument. It seems to me that that is pretty much the consensus--though man I hate deleting a journal. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on European History of Law[edit]

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

A very similar version of this article was deleted after an AFD in 2012. Since then, nothing much seems to have changed. However, speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G4) was denied because the journal is listed by a handful of library catalogs (fide WorldCat), certainly not enough libraries to indicate any notability. Also, this time around, there are two "references". One is a press release on a blog, the other a catalog entry. The only database that this journal is listed in is ERIH PLUS, a non-selective index. Article creator on the talk page argues that this should be kept because articles exist on 12 other language wikis (each one created by a different SPA), which is irrelevant, and that the journal has existed for 8 years, which also is irrelevant. In short, the deletion rationale of the previous AfD still stands: "No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Potential~~ keep -- It is difficult to provide independent sources for academic periodicals and learned societies, but I do not see that as a reason why we cannot have articles on them. The use of the word "scientific" in the text seems inappropriate, and may need changing to "academic". I consider that peer-reviewed journals are probably notable, though we probably do not need separate articles on a journal and the society that publishes it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have given this reasoning in other AfDs before. My comment is also the same as before: Perhaps you can give a reason that is policy-based? As for "scientific": in many European countries that do not follow the Anglo-Saxon tradition, no difference is made between "academic" and "scientific". In those countries, "history" (of law or anything else), is a science. For WP this should indeed be changed, of course, but why bother, given that there is nothing confirming notability here? --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A specialized humanities journal, for which our usual standard of being included in major indexes may not be effective. It covers primarily Roman law systems, and the various readily available law indexing services do not cover the field. U'm not sure what index would, as I know as little about these journals as anyone from a common-law country. I think this is a case of cultural bias,which is especially strong for periodicals. But I agree we should try to convert this into an article on the society,for which there is likely to be some information if it is a major international organization in the field. I consider Peterkin's arguement policy based--the policy is the enWP covers the world, and this has the logical implication that we may need to adjust our standards to do so.That why WO:N is only a guideline: it does not always apply. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm all for countering cultural bias by creating articles on notable topics that are neglected by WP. However, I don't think it's a good idea to use "cultural bias" as an argument to keep subjects that do not have any coverage in third-party sources and simply are not notable. Journals like this can be notable: there may exist reviews of them in other reliable sources. They may be included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, which contains thousands of humanities journals. Sure, enWP covers the world, absolutely. However, I don't see the logic that says this implies that we should therefore abandon all our usual inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Journal on European History of Law is subscribed by a number of European university libraries (particularly in German speaking countries), especially involving universities dealing with the history of law and the Roman law. Moreover, there are also many American university libraries among the subscribers, such as the Yale university, the University of Minnesota, the University of Chicago, the University of California - Berkeley, the California State University - Los Angeles etc. It is unlikely that the above mentioned university libraries would subscribe to a journal of poor quality. The plea that the journal must necessarily be included in the Scopus database or on the web of science, is not adequate for a journal dealing with humanities; in the branch of law and history, there are merely a few journals in the world that are included in the above mentioned databases. Nevertheless, there are also hundreds of quality journals not included in the Scopus database. I am strongly convinced that it would not be reasonable to exclude these quality journals from Wikipedia, especially provided that they are well-established and have a certain history. Considering that English is the lingua franca for the legal historians from many European countries, it is essencial that the informations about the Journal are accesible in English. Legalhistorian11 ( talk ) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being held in some university libraries is not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Nobody says that in order to be notable a journal must be included in Scopus. We have many notable journals that are not in this database. Yes, quality journals should have an article but we need to have independent reliable sources that tell us a journal is a quality journal. Please have a look at WP:NJournals to see what is needed. Alternatively, any subject that meets WP:GNG (regardless of whether or not it meets NJournals) is considered notable. At this point, I have not seen any evidence of any independent coverage at all, nor have I been able to find any. Please note (and this goes for the above !votes, too) that !votes here need to be policy-based, otherwise they risk being ignored by the closing admin. At this point, only the nom provides policy-based arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a non-admin closure contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested that this AfD be re-opened for further discussion, because I maintain that the !votes cast up till now are not policy based. I copy here what I posted at the DRV, as it pertains to this issue:

"Potential keep", by Peterkingiron, who acknowledges that it is difficult to find sources for subjects like this, but argues that "peer-reviewed journals are probably notable", without any further evidence.
"Keep", by DGG, who argues basically that "cultural bias" is at work here and that "specialized humanities journal, for which our usual standard of being included in major indexes may not be effective." I disagree with that reasoning regarding cultural bias ("I'm all for countering cultural bias by creating articles on notable topics that are neglected by WP. However, I don't think it's a good idea to use "cultural bias" as an argument to keep subjects that do not have any coverage in third-party sources and simply are not notable") as well as the assertion that such journals are rarely included in major indexes (see the similar European Journal of Health Law, which is included in a whole slew of such databases).
"Keep", by the article creator, Legalhistorian11, who argues that the journal is notable because it is held (subscribed to) by several prestigious libraries. Legalhistorian11 repeats the (incorrect) argument that journals like this are rarely included in major databases (see preceding).

Given the above, I maintain that notability has not been established for this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no workable standards for humanities journals. We use a special standard (Indexing services) for academic science journals, because it is usually not feasible to meet the GNG for this type of subject; but there are generally no appropriate humanities indexes. That's what IAR is for: the question is should this be in WP or not? DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that for humanities journals (which by the way have their own specialized selective citation index), we should use our own judgment, even if there are no sources? --Randykitty (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Examination shows it to be squarely scholarly and reputable. Coverage of scholarly journals is important. "Delete" is an absurd proposition. The question is whether it should be covered in its own article ("Wikipedia-notability" decision) or covered in another article that covers many similar journals. The second makes more sense. Without significant independent secondary source coverage, there can be no non-proforma prose. Scholarly journals are only properly understood collectively. This article should be merged and redirected to an article that may not yet be written. Until then, "keep" don't destroy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from your personal judgment, on what sources is your !vote based? --Randykitty (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independent secondary sources. I have used my judgment on nonindependent sources, considering reliability and subject area, to decide that it is worthy of mention in another article, not stand alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that you like the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, that is a little bit unfair. I have no particular care for this particular journal. What I like, for the scholarly integrity of the encyclopaedia, is that reputable scholarly topics get an easier run as inherently suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I sympathize with that viewpoint. However, if we abandon the principle that we judge subjects based on reliable sources and not our personal opinion/judgment, that opens the floodgates to all kinds of problems. Once we accept articles like this one, what is to prevent sympathizers of OMICS Publishing Group and similar publishers to create articles for all their crappy journals using your argumentation? Should we then say, "I had a look at this journal and its crap, so delete it"? We cannot and should not start relying on subjective criteria. We need objective criteria and for those we need reliable sources (and for journals we already take the -not completely uncontroversial- shortcut of accepting inclusion in selective databases as "in depth coverage"). --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a journal is niche does not mean it is not notable. Some journals are hard to find - especially European Law journals. There are some that are only available in Oxford Journals - they can't be found in JSTOR or Hein Online-US. This isn't because they are not notable, but because European Law is a specialized topic - even more so for history of European Law. Seraphim System (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I show above, "niche" journals like this absolutely do get included in major selective indexes. Apart from your personal judgment, on what sources is your !vote based? --Randykitty (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS/WP:GNG. For everyone arguing this is a notable journal, where are your sources? It's indexed nowhere except ERIHPlus (see 'visibility' tab), and the sources in the article are a trivial listing (meets WP:V, but not WP:N) and a press release commented on some guy's blog. Cultural bias or not, reputable or not, scientific/academic or not, notability needs to be backed by sources, and this simply hasn't been done. However, no objection to merge the existing content on a larger article covering the European Society for History of Law, which I consider the most desirable outcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Headbomb. We have standards for this type of article and there's no convincing reason given above why we should abandon them. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SmokeyJoe: "There are no independent secondary sources." Exactly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (voted above) -- It is difficult to find "independent sources" on academic journals. I would have no objection to the article being restructured and repurposed as one on the parent society, but exactly the same issue is likely to arise - that the sources will be internal ones. The reason for WP not liking such sources is that they may not be reliable, but what society is going to publish false information on its activities and publications for the benefit of its members: doing so would be counter-productive. It should also be born in mind that the citation indices used for scientific publications are commonly not addressing humanities subjects well. However, it is in fact included in this website and this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first link you give is from the website of STS Science Centre, according to what is listed as the journal homepage, this is the publisher of the journal. (In fact, I think this is the actual homepage of the journal, the other one is just a mirror on the society website). The second link is a post from Jaromir Tauchen, the secretary of the society and a frequent contributor to the journal. Sorry, but I find it weird that someone would base a "keep" !vote on this sort of evidence. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in dispute that this journal exists, it is reputable, and it is held in some academic collections. None of these are the same thing as "notability" however. In the absence of substantial independent sources about the journal, we have no choice but to Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Not true. It can be merged into another article. The content is perfectly acceptable, just not as a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well sure, what target would you propose? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:33, 21 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Catholic Parish (Wilmington)[edit]

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

Not notable local church. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem notable. bojo | talk 15:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, as far as I can see. St Anselm (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found in multiple searches. A typical church. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 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. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake[edit]

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

Contested WP: PROD. The contesting editor provided no justification, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the PROD: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and both the cited sources provide only basic database information, no significant coverage. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had no luck finding significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find relevant citations in English speaking publications. I think this article would be a good fit for wiki which fits the language of this games' target market. Knox490 (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The series has an article so it may be worth considering a redirect.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to series article—Goemon (series)—as a useful search term, as most of the titles in the series should do czar 04:56, 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. It seems that WP:LISTED would require that sourced be produced so they can be weighed. Without those sources, there is broad consensus to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagineer (Japanese company)[edit]

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

Contested WP: PROD. No justification provided by the contesting editor (indeed, his posts at my personal talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga heavily imply that he is contesting all of my PRODs indiscriminately). The only cited source, GameFAQs, is unreliable due to its use of user-submitted content (see WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources). The article on Japanese Wikipedia has slightly better sourcing, but not enough that importing them would bring this article up to WP: NCOMPANY standards. Researching the subject is difficult due to the existence of at least one unrelated company with the same name, but my admittedly limited checks have turned up no useful sources for the article. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. The deletion should stand. It appears justified. No signs of being notable such as good sources, etc. I did do a Google search of "imagineer JASDAQ".[23] Knox490 (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Publicly traded company with a market capitalization of over US$90M. Keeping per WP:LISTED, the Nikkei has several (paywalled and Japanese) articles on the company at http://www.nikkei.com/nkd/company/news/?scode=4644&ba=9&DisplayType=1 - hahnch e n 10:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no sources to write this article, so it's impossible to do justice to the topic and fulfill WP:V simultaneously. Also note that the linked publicly traded corp notability guidelines say that stock market listing itself isn't automatic notability, as we need the source material. Additionally, I wouldn't call the jpwp article's sources any better. Of the three links, two are primary sources and one is another jpwp article. I didn't get any hits in EBSCOhost outside of Disney, though Factiva is worth a try if someone has access. They tend to have more business-related publications. czar 05:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 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 deleted via WP:BLPPROD. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lalchand Gaur[edit]

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

Article about a city councilor fails NPOL. Otherwise doesn't pass GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bikaner is not an internationally prominent global city, so its city councillors do not get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for the fact of holding local office — but this article is completely unreferenced, which means there's no evidence that he passes the "who have received significant press coverage" part of NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 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 speedy delete. Obvious csd, shouldn't have been removed without an attempt at discussion as identical to the original deleted only days ago. Will wait if recreated. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Browne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A speedy deletion request was refused by the page creator. This article was deleted one or two days ago for failing GNG/NFOOTY and I see no improvement in this version of the article. Spiderone 14:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:12, 13 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) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Shariati[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reason given. 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. Cannot see any indication he is in the first team squad at Soccerway Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I had added the prod). As far as I can tell, he is so far only a youth player, not (yet) notable. Fram (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NSPORT and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:37, 20 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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Liberty Australia[edit]

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

Minuscule subgroup with no sources; not within cooee of GNG. Frickeg (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alliance for Workers' Liberty - verifiable that the Australian group exists, but nothing else other than information published by the AWL. AWL article already mentions this Australian group, so nothing to merge. Warofdreams talk 20:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too small a constituency with a lack of press, etc. Knox490 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching on Trove returns almost no references on this group. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - just as many very weird miniscule right wing groups need a home article, so do the trotskyists JarrahTree 05:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the Zionist Jehovist National Socialist Party and similar tiny and fringe political groups, as we usually do. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 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) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Halsall[edit]

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

The reasoning behind nominating this article stems from the consensus reached in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Elston, which also referred to a Pirate Party (UK) politician elected to a minor office. As before, independent news coverage about him mentions him only in passing and there aren't multiple examples of reliable, independent coverage which talk about him in any depth. A redirect to an "executive" section of the Pirate Party UK article might be better. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here adds up to an automatic WP:NPOL pass — and the referencing is a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, which is not enough to confer a WP:GNG pass in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small political party internal officer holders are not notable if there is not widespread coverage of them to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even internal office holders in large political parties aren't notable if they haven't received widespread independent coverage. There's nothing about being an agent, press officer or treasurer that makes someone a public figure even if they are responsible for a significant organisation. My biggest problem with this article and the related one that was closed last week is that pretty much all of it is based on original research, glancing namechecks in independent media and sources that are in no way independent of the subject. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:59, 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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Play Magnus[edit]

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia notability requirements. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Plenty of citations confirming notability. The game has the World Chess Champion, Magnus Carlsen's name making it more notable and the app has been downloaded over 1,000,000 times confirming notability. Codename Lisa is a +tag spammer that tried to get the screen shot of the app used in the article deleted, now the editor is trying get the whole article deleted...shame, shame, shame. IQ125 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Definite notability, with claims backed up by the linked sources across a sufficiently significant range of media outlets. The sources given are independent of the subject. Magnus Carlsen is significant in his own right, but the game itself is distinct from his actual personality and shouldn't be merged into a section of his article. The article covers a topic that has consistent and continual coverage, evidenced by the number of downloads it has received. Furthermore, the article does not come across as an advert or sales pitch and gives an informative and succinct summary of its subject. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem available in a variety of reliable and professional sources. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fortuna. Plenty of sourcing appears to exist. There's some minor issues surrounding this article but AFD is not cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (edit conflict) Many available sources out there, simply googling the name of the game on Google News brings up a decent amount. @IQ125: Please assume good faith, Codename Lisa is not out to get you, someone simply adding cleanup tags or cleaning up an article isn't against the rules. Users are encouraged to edit articles while the AfD tag is on it in order to help the article get kept. You are currently engaged in an edit war, please just take a step back and realise that the article is not yours, and that other users are able to edit it too (this is Wikipedia, after all). It's also one of the pettiest things to argue about, Lisa was literally just cleaning up the infobox to standards. If you've got any questions, feel free to hit up my talk page. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per O fortuna. I assume nom is talking about the GNG anyway L3X1 (distant write) 14:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article passes WP:NSOFTWARE, specifically the reliability and significance of sources. TopCipher (talk) 15:07, 13 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) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Justice Party[edit]

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

No evidence that political party has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's multiple issues with this article, the most critical being failing notability per the nomination. I can't see any coverage of this upcoming party, and there is not a single citation offered by its creator. The list of policies reads like WP:NOTPROMO, and the link in the infobox to the supposed 'youth wing' of the party links to a fictional comic book. I'm unsure if this is a genuine article or a hoax, but either way it should be deleted. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Only source I can found is their facebook group and page should I put it in there. will that clear this debate. Torygreen84 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Torygreen84: No, their own facebook page is not a reliable source to establish notability. Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On The list of policies reads like WP:NOTPROMO do you read the other party's ether you don't or your bias because Australian Greens, Katter's Australian Party, Jacqui Lambie Network Family First Party Liberal Democratic Party and many more have a list of policies. does that read to you like a WP:NOTPROMO. Torygreen84 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Liberty Australia is an other page that just has one source from themselves and its not deleted. Why?? Torygreen84 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just nominated. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. Frickeg (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Super-obvious one. Violates WP:CRYSTAL, amongst all the other things. No sources to speak of. Frickeg (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Negligible independent coverage to date. To be launched July 2017. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it reaches a level of notability. The bar for notability of political parties in Australia is slightly above "Registered for elections in at least one jurisdiction". I say "slightly above" as we have also deleted one article for a registered party where the only sources were its registration and Facebook. I'm happy to welcome the article back once the party is registered. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at their website about page and found no notable achievements. [24]. Appears to be a party that has not achieved notability - especially in light of other editor AfD comments.Knox490 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORG is not met Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where do I even begin? WP:TNT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:HAMMER are good places to start, I guess. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete per WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice against recreation of article should the Party attract adequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 20 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) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Schrode[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Sources online mainly stem from her unsuccessful candidacy for elected office. Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources aren't reliable either regarding her failed running for office that failed GNG and POLITICIAN. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 09:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @KGirlTrucker81: Psst, Erin Schrode is a woman. --Kurykh (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurykh: Oh, I almost forgot about it, there I correct it. Even teen girls don't know what their gender when identifying persons lol. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election. But this article, as written and sourced, fails to demonstrate that she had the preexisting notability needed to qualify for an article apart from her candidacy — almost all of the sourcing is in the candidacy context itself and thus falls under WP:ROUTINE, and the only sources that predate that are two blogs and a blurb in a listicle. So she doesn't get an article because candidate, and the sourcing here is not adequate to get her an article because Thinking Green. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schrode is a failed congressional candidate and thus non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 20 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 Forced disappearance#Argentina. The redirect may be contested at suitable venues (WP:RFD) if people are so inclined Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Estela Márquez Dreyer[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "I saw sources in web search". No sign they pass WP:GNG. Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to some page on Argentinian history. No notability of itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, sad but not notable; per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider possible redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate she is different than hundreds of other descamisados, and no justification to have articles on all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 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) 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaree[edit]

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

A search for significant coverage in reliable sources mainly resulted in passing mentions or artist profiles. I did find two sources about the artist, but both are from non-independent sources (one was from Big Sean's foundation; the artist had opened for one of his concerts, while the other source is a possibly non-reliable blog). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIO and nowhere near meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The only sources I found were self-published social media. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:07, 6 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} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails GNG per a Google News search. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 06:40, 13 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) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watzke[edit]

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

Article about a family, I prodded it few weeks ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Deprodded by creator with a promise "removed deletion notice - will fix", no improvement since. This is a poorly referenced mess on a topic of unclear notability suited for WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Then I can replace it with a surname list of four+ entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 11 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} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage for this surname. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 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. There is consensus that this is, one way or another, a mistake--and it is not good to keep mistakes in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus[edit]

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

This name first came to my attention some months ago when I was working on List of Roman Consuls: none of my sources could confirm this person's existence. Despite a search on Google, I have been unable to find any reliable source that mentions him. The only original source which appears to even mention this person is a genealogical website which appears to be dodgy to me. In response to a query I left on the talk page last November, Mikythos checked the two sources cited in the article, & neither mention Vestinus. I'm guessing that the original editor took the information from a website (perhaps the one I mention) & directly cited the sources provided there without checking them first. A good-faith article creation. However, at best this person is a phantom & at worst an inadvertent hoax. (P.S. I checked, & none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion appear to apply in this case.) llywrch (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the cited sources don't support the claims, the article is unsourced with the likely supposition of a hoax. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Titus Sextius Lateranus (consul 154). Seems to be a mix of that individual (the long version of Titus Sextius Lateranus' name described on that page and in Mennen includes "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus"), and his father. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay, now I can see where that name came from originally: someone with a hazy grasp of polyonomous names (which was a typical practice in the 2nd century AD Roman Empire; T. Sexius Lateranus' full name is an example of that) assumed L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus was the father of the consul of 154, made up the rest of the material, & put it up on the Internet somewhere where it was found & used in the Wikipedia article. Just one more example why I've become more conservative about accepting information I find -- even from experts. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to T. Sextius Lateranus. It could be interpreted as a mistake for the consul, but polyonymous Roman nomenclatures tended to accumulate by adding the names of maternal ancestors, so there probably was a grandfather or great-grandfather with this name. A couple of other individuals with the combination "Volusius Torquatus" show up in the EDCS database. Whether there'll ever be any direct evidence of this particular person other than the survival of his name in the consul's nomenclature is uncertain, but not impossible. P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to 'delete' because info from the Internet sounds like hoax to me. A few years ago, I came across a music article about an orchestral interpretation of the entire Bee Gees catalog. I don't know the Bee Gees, but I know music and the 'nomenclature' it was using told me straight-away it was a hoax, which it was. But it was hard to explain it to others until an admin understood what I was saying. The source came from the "internet." If you're sure, I'm happy for a keep, but it sounds dodgy to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a hoax; Smmurphy and Llywrch have already identified the original source of the name. There was a consul whose full (known) nomenclature was either Titus Sextius Lateranus Marcus Vibius (probably Ovellius or Quietus) Secundus Lucius Vol [usius Torquatus?] Vestinus. Based on what we know of Roman nomenclature of this period, it's likely that his maternal ancestors included men named Marcus Vibius Ovellius (or Quietus) Secundus and Lucius Volusius Torquatus (with or without Vestinus). However, we can't be sure which if either was his maternal grandfather, or if one of them was his great-grandfather on his maternal grandmother's side or his paternal grandmother's side. It would have depended largely on which was more illustrious. And while we know of men with similar names, we don't know at this point if they were his ancestors or collateral relatives such as uncles or cousins. So an article about one of them based solely on the appearance of the name in the consul Sextius' nomenclature seems unjustified, although at some point there may be sufficient information to warrant such an article, whether or not the person referred to can be clearly identified in terms of relationship to Sextius.

Such an article could be created and moved over the redirect, or created out of the redirect, if we turn the current one into a redirect; but if we simply delete the page, then someone running across the name as a fragment of Sextius' nomenclature might not find him. Which is why a redirect to Sextius is probably a better idea than deleting the article, until such point as the name warrants an article of its own. In other words, it's not a hoax; it's someone with a tenuous grasp of Roman nomenclature and notability inferring without evidence that some maternal ancestor, about whom we know nothing but his name, was the consul's father, and that knowing his name is sufficient reason for him to have his own article, which really isn't the case. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am assuming this article to be a mistake rather than a hoax. If so, there is confusion. The solution thus needs to be a limited merge that will explain why there is a redirect to a name that appears to be unconnected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned awhile ago to never !vote merge/redirect unless that was a sure outcome because not only would it leave the article in place waiting on a second process to occur, it fails to establish that the community wants to remove the content as-is. !Voting delete establishes firm community consensus, removes the possibility of a redirect getting hijacked (which is popular as of late), and provides for WP:G4 in the future. If there was content here worth saving, editors can move it over to other applicable articles now before this concludes. Anyone supporting merge/redirect is really !voting "keep", which is probably not their intent. I'm not a classical era historian so I don't have much faith that these two are the same person, anyway. That assertion might be true but I have little faith in leaving a redirect. As there is no deadline, there's no need to "save" content. Let someone more responsible add this content years in the future and do so properly. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rechecked all of the sources given in this article, to see if there was something that Llywrch or Mikythos missed.

I can't see page 165 of Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian, but from pages 164 and 166 he seems to be discussing persons whom Domitian raised to the consulship during his reign, which does not suggest that it mentions a consul from AD 112, as this article asserts (Domitian died in 96). The index contains listings for one Lucius Volusius Saturninus, consul in 87, and one Quintus Volusius Saturninus, consul in 192. Lucius is the one mentioned on page 165, and I cannot rule out the possibility that it mentions a son, but there is no "Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" in the index, and for reasons to follow I do not think it states that such a son was consul in 112.

Jörg Rüpke's Fasti Sacerdotum, cited to p. 1288 (one of four hits for "Volusius"; the other three don't look relevant), is a discussion of T. Sextius T. f. Lateranus M. Vibius Ovellius . . . Secundus L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus, consul in 154. Note 4 says that he was the son of T. Sextius Africanus, consul in 112; not of L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus.

PIR, vol. III, p. 487 (V 666), is an entry for (L.) Volusius Torquatus, son of the consul Lucius of AD 87. It indicates that he apparently married his cousin, Licinia Cornelia M. f. Volusia Torquata. The entry says nothing about him being consul in 112, and it doesn't assign him the cognomen Vestinus.

Not cited is E. Mary Smallwood's Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, which gives fasti for the reign of Trajan and indicates that we seem to have a complete list of consuls for 112; this list includes T. Sextius Lateranus but not L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus. I do not see that or any similar name anywhere in her lists, either as a dated or undated consul.

Lastly, I mention that the entire article was written and documented by Anriz, whose chief interest in Roman history seems to have been illustrating Descent from antiquity, and who has in many other articles attempted to tie together various persons from Roman history whose connection seems at best uncertain.

So, in all this article appears to be mostly about a real person, Lucius Volusius Torquatus, although I can find nothing to suggest that he was surnamed Vestinus. The only logical source for that name is Rüpke, whose entry is not about the same person. That seems to be the only source for a supposed consulship in 112, as well. It seems that Anriz concluded that the Titus Sextius Lateranus who was consul in 154 was the son, not of T. Sextius Lateranus, consul in 112, but of an L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus, perhaps misunderstanding Sextius' nomenclature, and that this "Vestinus" must have been the consul of 112.

It's true that in some cases the last names in a polyonymous Roman nomenclature are the ones inherited from the father, but in this instance reliable sources indicate that the opposite was the case. Lateranus, the consul of 154, was probably descended from a Lucius Volusius Torquatus; and could perhaps be the grandson of the one at PIR, vol. III, p. 487, although in this case Vestinus seems to come from somewhere else. This article creates a phantom consul out of a misinterpretation of Rüpke, IMO.

However, there does seem to have been a Lucius Volusius Torquatus, who was the son of Saturninus, the consul of 87, and who married Licinia Cornelia. I would strike the cognomen Vestinus as it isn't indicated for him in any known source, and any reference to a consulship in 112, since the consul referred to was clearly a different person. Now, as the combination "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" is only known to occur in the name of T. Sextius Lateranus, the consul of 154, I think that this title should redirect there; but the parts of this article that aren't clearly erroneous should be moved to "Lucius Volusius Torquatus", as such a person did exist, and he seems to be the only individual with that name. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to sort this out
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@(P Aculeius) "On 13 January 87, C.Calpurnius Piso Crassus Frugi Licinianus (PIR2 C 259) became suffect consul, replacing Domitian and holding the post with another patrician, L.Volusius Saturninus, who may well have been married to Calpurnius’s cousin, Licinia Cornelia." Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian is available online in its entirety. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also a Lucius Vestinus, warmly mentioned in Claudius Oratio: "Here is this splendid and powerful colony of Vienna [modern Vienne in southern of France]; is it so long since it sent to us senators? From that colony comes Lucius Vestinus, one of the glories of the equestrian order, my personal friend, whom I keep close to myself for the management of my private affairs. Let his sons be suffered---I pray you--- to become priests of the lowest rank, while waiting until, with the lapse of years, they can follow the advancement of their dignity".[25]. He went on to become "praefectus Aegypti" and has a nice article in German WP. His son Marcus Iulius Vestinus Atticus was consul in 65. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some interesting resources (and I look forward to reading the Domitian book), but they don't shed any new light on this discussion. We already know that there was a Lucius Volusius Saturninus who was consul in 87, and that he had a son named Lucius Volusius Torquatus. But we also know that the particular combination "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" appears in only one place: the nomenclature of the consul of 154, whose father Titus Sextius Lateranus was consul in 112. None of the sources cited in the article state that there was a consul in 112 named Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus; none of the traditional sources for identifying consuls name such a person; he is not attested in any historian, any encyclopedia of antiquity, in any treatise, or in any known inscriptions.

Quite simply this is a case of the article's original author conflating different people. He or some unidentified source he used (but did not cite) knew that the consul whose name ended in "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" was the son or grandson of someone who was consul in 112, and that he was named after said consul. But he did not realize that the consul in question was Titus Sextius Lateranus, and not someone named "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus", who as far as can be determined did not exist. The most that we can say is that Lucius Volusius Torquatus (sans Vestinus) was a real person and likely to have been an ancestor, perhaps the maternal grandfather, of the consul of 154, but there is no evidence whatever that he was consul in 112, and no reason to believe that the assertion that he was is anything other than confusion with Titus Sextius Lateranus, who is known to have been both consul in 112 and the father of the consul of 154. This falls in the category of "mistake", assuming good faith on the part of the editor in question; and there isn't any likelihood of new evidence suddenly coming to light on this issue. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was just wondering where the cognomen Vestinus may come from. Anyways, I just found something else that might be directly relevant: an epigraphic mention of L(ucius) Vol[usius Torquatus?] Vestinus. The inscription, whose original is lost, is analysed by William Seston in this article in French (p.111). His reconstruction differs from the previous one (HD). He hesitates between L. Vol[cacius Torquatus?] and L. Vol[usius Saturninus]. Torquatus and Volusius are just conjectures. There is also a discrepancy between the two versions of the inscription: L in the HD record vs. LUC in Seston. So, probably no Torquatus and no Volusius, possibly no Lucius, Titus Sextius Lateranus is here, but whether Vestinus is one of his cognomina or someone else ain't clear to me. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 16:11, 13 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. My previous relist was a mistake, possible a bug with the closing script I use. The consensus is clear that this professor doesn't meet our notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prof M M Pant[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC. Article is grossly promotional. Another admin declined CSD A7 and G11 nominations. (The A7 I kinda sorta can accept, but if this is not unambiguous promotion then there is no such thing.) Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that there should be a wiki article on Prof Pant. He is one of the acclaimed public figures in the field of education in India. One may discuss how objectively the article has been written and whether the contents have been supported by reliable third party references or not. I am sure I shall be able to provide such references in a couple of days. I have already provided one. But to delete it outright from Wikipedia would be grossly unfair. Arunbandana (talk) 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS cites not enough for WP:Prof#C1, other categories not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Pro vice chancellor not quite enough for WP:PROF#C6, other categories not passed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just for the fact that he was a Pro Vice Chancellor of a leading university of India but also by the way he is influencing the teachers and professors in the field of education in India and those from at least 20 countries in the world by his innovative Mobile MOOCS today. He must have conducted more than 15 such mobile MOOCS in subjects such as Flash Fiction, Life Long Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Finance, MOOCS etc. A simple google search of his name gives you such obvious results of his contribution in terms of his earlier research papers and most importantly his recent lectures in various educational institutions about the tsunami of change that that is overtaking the present system of education. Arunbandana (talk) arunbandana 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject doesn't pass WP:PROF. Pro-vice-chancellors are deputies to the vice-chancellor, and are usually appointed for temporary periods. In fact, the subject's own curriculum vitae states that he was the pro-vice-chancellor of IGNOU only "briefly". Other positions the subject has held aren't notable and too few citations to pass WP:PROF#C1. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist to discuss IsaacSt's sources. Prior delete !votes means a withdraw is out of order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 13 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 East Bergholt. Among the various suggestions, redirect gets votes and is provided with an argument. That NGEO makes anything notable is questionable, and not every human habitation is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East End, Suffolk[edit]

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

totally unsourced. there seems to be nothing that suggests this actually exists over and above google maps. the grange country and caravan park gives its address as Colchester and i could find nothing about the butcher's. the pub used as an illustration is in East Bergholt according to their website. here Fails WP:GEOLAND Domdeparis (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Bergholt, as it falls within that civil parish so can be mentioned there. It appears on Ordnance Survey maps, so I think it does exist as a (very small) settlement, but it clearly isn't significant enough to warrant a separate article. Jellyman (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirect suggestion. Domdeparis (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of outcome, a hatnote is needed to East End (Long Island). – Train2104 (t • c) 01:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Both articles are sufficiently disambiguated. No-one's going to end up in Suffolk looking for Long Island!~~ (Whoops, should have read "East End of Long Island ... New York's Suffolk County" first). It does need adding to East End (disambiguation) though - I'll do that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it appears on Ordnance Survey maps it is a legally recognised place and hence meets WP:NGEO. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you have the proof that it appears on the OS maps? Domdeparis (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Domdeparis: - it's there, just east of East Bergholt. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your reply gave me an idea so I checked the OS website and I managed to find it but only with the name East End Lane Colchester and not East End, Suffolk itself. I am not sure what legally recognised means does the fact that it exists on the OS map mean it is legally recognised? On the OS maps even individual farm-houses are noted does that make them legally recognised and thus notable enough for a page with no other coverage? Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 12 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} 05:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a human habitation and we keep all such. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 21 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. Rlendog (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Toninato[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article too soon, Toninato has not yet played in a professional league, fails WP:NHOCKEY. There is some coverage but not enough for GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 11 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} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable, secondary sources, a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tzsagan (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. He may well get meet the hockey criteria someday, but he's not there yet (WP:CRYSTALBALL). I agree with the other WP:TOOSOON comments. Papaursa (talk) 03:26, 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) 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haynie[edit]

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

Another editor's PROD was removed and a single source was added. So, the next step is --- does this guy meet the requirements for an article? Kellymoat (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actor with minor roles only. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 11 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} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 20 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 Fantasia Barrino#Awards and nominations. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Fantasia Barrino[edit]

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

Article empty, content already exists at [[26]]. No separate article required. RoCo^(talk) 16:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sense having duplicates and one being an empty list. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:26, 5 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} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheSandDoctor. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantasia Barrino#Awards and nominations, as should always be done when a WP:SPLIT is premature. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 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 Speedy deleted as G11 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashe[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Proposing deletion per WP:NORG and WP:ADMASQ. RoCo^(talk) 17:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 8 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} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADMASK. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:43, 13 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 00:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Scheyen[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NDIRECTOR. Didn't find much more than what was already there regarding external sources after a Google search South Nashua (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 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} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything here would be enough for a Wikipedia article if it were referenced to reliable source coverage about him in media, but none of it is strong enough to grant him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass. But the references here are all primary sources, which cannot support notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powerboot PCs[edit]

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

fail WP:NCORP ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 12 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} 05:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article on a company, mainly listing its products. There is no claim of notability, and my searches are finding nothing but mundane listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My source searching for coverage did not find sufficient secondary source coverage and therefore fails WP:ORG --Imminent77 (talk) 19:57, 13 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 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Leblanc[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. This is a promotional article with dubious sources for a local businessman with a local company. Cannot find any national news coverage. Rogermx (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 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} 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in article aren't good enough. Search check shows mostly industry specific (pools) publications, and this - [27].Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahad Raza Mir[edit]

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

Draft cannot pass out of AfD, and so it was simply recreated in mainspace. Was deleted (A7) a month ago. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON, not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and they definitely don't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one role that might be significant in a notable production that has actually come out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 7 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} 04:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the references cited are unreliable. --Saqib (talk) 20:43, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Kinetic Treatment[edit]

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

Have looked for reliable sources and found none. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain, Vancouver Sun, PubMed, Zee News, Gulf News, Hindustan Times, and The Hindu. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 20 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. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Social Economy Forum[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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Sfdiversity (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). SO now we are here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent references to indicate notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:29, 20 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 00:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Haugen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; all reliable source coverage pertains to him playing Ugly Naked Guy on Friends. Everymorning (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete a 2-episode uncredited role as an extra does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 20 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 00:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International No Diet Day[edit]

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

Undersourced, highly suspect notability, overly promotional tone, unencyclopedic POV and WP:FRINGE pushing. Article has been tagged for serious issues for many years with no improvement. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmmm. FRINGE/NPOV etc. issues mean this can be tagged, but I don't see a need for WP:TNT. Notability is established through a look at GScholar and GBooks sources. Janet Clarkson (24 December 2013). Food History Almanac: Over 1,300 Years of World Culinary History, Culture, and Social Influence. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 431–. ISBN 978-1-4422-2715-6. and Dana K. Cassell; David H. Gleaves (1 January 2009). The Encyclopedia of Obesity and Eating Disorders, Third Edition. Infobase Publishing. pp. 312–. ISBN 978-0-8160-6992-7. are just a tip of the iceberg, the term is well defined, its history is described, and its significance for the "Fat movement" or such seems reasonably high. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per a simple Google Books search with only the article title. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mélencron (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Macron[edit]

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

WP:INVALIDBIO; no evidence of notability independent of her relationship to Emmanuel Macron Mélencron (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page for "Bernadette Chirac" plus there is a page for "Anne Aymone_Giscard_d'Estaing" so why should there be no page for "Brigitte Macron"? Tartarindebergerac (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; in any case, both were spouses of French presidents – this article only concerns the spouse of a current candidate. Mélencron (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep there are lots of sources since 3 years. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:55, 13 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. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Long[edit]

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

There are no reliable secondary sources used in the article, and no indication of notability. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 13:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at news search? Looks to me like this guy and his crazy ideas and his NDERF have independent coverage in enough places to be considered notable. E.g. this one at ABC News. Just because it's fringe doesn't mean it's not notable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add them to the article and !vote "Keep" you may "win" the discussion, then. This is neither my monkey nor my circus, so if you get enough suitable references added I'll happily withdraw the nom.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, (no reliable sources in article). -Roxy the dog. bark 14:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my recent PROD nomination (removed by User:Dicklyon), which went: "Sources are very far from demonstrating notability, being either to self (Long's own site nderf.org), or of the type "the man/the book exists" (Amazon, German Random House, etc), or an utterly unreliable-looking [woo-woo] site called skeptiko.com." This AfD is the third place Dicklyon has mentioned the existence of "independent coverage". I'm with MjolnirPants: if Dicklyon improves the article by adding some of the reliable sources he believes exist, I'll consider changing to Keep. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Near-death experience. I looked through the news search sources recommended by Dicklyon and found passing mentions of Long, but no real in-depth coverage of him sufficient to warrant a stand alone bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long is one of the leading authorities in the field of near-death studies and the author of a New York Times Best Seller. Yes, there are enough people, which hate such kind of researchers, and these people would like to delete all about it. Just check what they have done in the article Near-death experience last days [28]. There are many, many movies about that subject, and many of these movies are very popular. They, with ip's, not with their own name, delete the links to other Wikipedia-articles, which show that movies. I tried to call it to the admins of Wikipedia, but even there they called these movies junk movies and worth to delete them all from Wikipedia [29]. And now, one day later, they try to delete an article about one of the leading researchers on that field. I don't understand, why there is so much negative emotions about that subject. If I work on other Wikipedia-articles, there are much less emotions in most cases. If somebody don't like this subject, they don't need to read it. But there are more than 1000 visitors every day on the article near-death experience. And that success may be a reason for some people to destroy that, just because they hate it. There is no rational reason for doing that. Wega14 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wega14: you might benefit from a quick read of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I don't understand. In the article is most written already. Long was in very, very much TV-Shows, is the author of a New York Times Best Seller, one of the leading authorities in the field of near-death studies and more. Come on, that is more than enough to have an own article in Wikipedia. If you say, the quality is not good enough, ok. But that is already written in that article isn't it? Wega14 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that we generally don't judge the Notability of an article subject by whether or not editors say "they've been on many tv shows" (which is unverifiable in and of itself) or whether they have written a bestseller (which is incredibly easy to game, and which their publishers have a vested interest in gaming). If you want to keep this article, what you will need to do is find a significant number of reliable sources (be sure to click on that link to help you decide whether a source is reliable or not) who have written about Long. This doesn't include cases where he is mentioned in passing, such as when a source gives a list of NDE-associated people and includes Long on that list. It has to be about Long to qualify. As I said to Dicklyon above: I don't mind withdrawing the nomination one bit, but for that to happen, I need to be shown that yes, there is a significant amount of coverage of this guy in reliable sources. Right now, I just don't see that, and most of the editors who come here to comment on this aren't going to see that either, unless you or Dicklyon can dig up those sources and add them to the article (be sure to post them here, as well, as some of us may not be watching the article).

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so I do list some articles: [30] [31] an article in washington post [32] Huffington Post [33] today: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] I could continue more than hundred very easy. Wega14 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be saved, I think, if you'll look for sources that are independent enough. The Washington Post one you added today is "By Dr. Jeffrey Long", so not really independent coverage of him. Do the work. Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an article by Jeffrey Long in the Washington Post. How important has a person to be, to be allowed to write an own article in the Washington Post? Just give me some examples, I would include them all, may be one hundred. Would that be enough? Wega14 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it now enough? The list of references is already longer than the article itself. I can continue including sources, but I know, next day there will come another user, which delete them again. Wega14 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: there are 5 to 15 percent of all people around the world, which report to had already a near-death experience. It is a kind of Discrimination what happens here, if they are called all crazy people. And there are researchers working on the field, they are called crazy, too. And there are many, many movies. These are called junk movies. And there is the artificial intelligence. They can rebuild the brain now, means the neuronal networks with simulations in the computer by software. The cognitive abilities these artificial intelligence have, but these have no emotions and no consciousness. So out-of-brain theories get more and more popular among researchers. But many still call this esoteric. I think, such things should stop. Wega14 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the sources recently added are not reliable and the article reads like an advert now. 82.132.215.104 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you use your username doing this? You are from London, what I can see. And it seems that you are the same one doing the last changes on Near-death experience like [39] and [40]. The last source is much too old, because the near-death research just started at that time. If you would know something about that subject, you would know that. And why did you delete all the links to the popular films, which have main subject NDE? Something similar was done already here [41]. It is a kind of fight of you against that subject it seems to me. There you used also different ip's all from London. Wega14 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wega14, Please read WP:BLUDGEON and carefully consider if it is truly necessary for you to argue with every comment here. Also, please read WP:FOC and try to remain focused on content, not contributors.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was once a list of the most well known NDE researchers in the article near-death experience. One of them was Jeffrey Long. You can see it here: [42]. They started to delete important parts of the article near-death experience. Now they start deleting the wikipedia-articles of the well known NDE-researches in Wikipedia. Wega14 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if someone is willing to do the work of gathering the probably notable sources available in a trivial google scholar search instead of just criticizing. Skills are needed but so is actually paying attention to the work worth doing rather than beat it up because no one has done it. Smkolins (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to include some of them. Wega14 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is a mess, but if the independent refs are cleaned up, and a bit of content from each is added, and some of the self-refs removed, it would be a reasonable bio of notable fringe guy. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Wega14 (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon - I moved some of the non-independent material out of the reflist, and I tried to flesh out the bio a bit with the references that were there. There are still a few refs that don't really support that statement about his media appearances, but I think things are at least in a bit better shape now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May be you could still vote for keep ? Wega14 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the "Keeps" above and per the subject being a notable expert and major researcher in his chosen field of endeavor. Maybe there is life after AfD after all! Randy Kryn 1:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Wega14 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a BLP, so a relist is probably best
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User: Wega14 gave all the compelling reasons why this man is noble. He not only is widely covered in the press, but he has been on the leading talk shows as well. Best selling author as well. The adequacy of his explanations/documentation of near death is an entirely separate issue from his notability. There is clearly a market for him in terms what he is promoting. I understand people's skepticism. though. Long appeared on the Coast to Coast radio show. I personally wouldn't bother listening to him on Coast to Coast as I have never heard a compelling guest on that show. But people need to stop flagging articles for deletion when the person is a high profile member of society merely because they disagree with their ideas. In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are valid, but clearly there are people who have a big market share and large followings. Large followings = Public Influence = Notability. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources to establish notability regardless of whether or not we are fans of their work. Artw (talk) 20:23, 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) 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Abdulrahman[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are either own web-sites, amazon sales or regurgitated press releases. Nothing independent. Highly promotional. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs the promotional material removed, but otherwise he actually passes GNG, which I find a bit surprising for a professional public speaker. Go figure. [43] [44] [45]. Although not all the coverage is glowing: [46], [47]. Yvarta (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every one of those positive reviews appear to be a regurgitated press releases. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, all the sources are thinly disguised advertorials, interviews with the subject or press releases. Even the negative stuff isn't indicating notability. Nthep (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per reasons cited by Yvarta. HelgaStick (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the author and principal contributor of this article has been blocked indefinitely for paid editing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To attract more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 13:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. looks blatantly self promotional. With mostly PR sources . LibStar (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is a BLP, one more relist is reasonable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per User:Nthep. The sourcing is essentially either the subject himself or warmed-over press releases, and the actual content is essentially an advert. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided don't seem to meet the standards for substantiating a notability claim. The National is based out of the United Arab Emirates and is government owned/ controlled (i.e., not reliable). None of the self-authored pieces will do the trick, nor will the reference to "Speaking.com" or "sharjahcityguide.com." KDS4444 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, nom. L3X1 (distant write) 02:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Energy and Policy Institute[edit]

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

An American advocacy organization with no really discernible footprint. The article creator claims he's cited the "NY Times, WaPost, Politico", but they barely qualify even as passing mentions, since they are simply the organization's head being quoted a single time each in the news stories. Not to mention that the New York Times reference doesn't even support the claim made in the article, and the Politico reference is irrelevant to the subject of Energy and Policy Institute itself; the latter bit seems almost indistinguishable from original research. Calton | Talk 00:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, I have no objection. I take responsibility for not following the secondary source guidelines and Notability standard. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I've placed a speedy deletion tag on the article, indicating that you are okay with deletion. This may speed things along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 13 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) 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CInfoways[edit]

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

Promotional. Fails notability guideline. RoCo^(talk) 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG I was unable to find sufficient independent secondary sources --Imminent77 (talk) 19:43, 13 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 Nikki Haley#Personal life. I'll also be merging some of the content in my capacity as an editor. Sandstein 07:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exotica International[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Successful enough small company, but there doesn't appear to be much significant coverage about the company. Notoriety seems more linked to the fact that the found is Nikki Haley's mother. The Economist almost has enough, but the coverage about the business is secondary to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is this is not merely "Nikki Haley's mother"'s company, it is the company that employed both Nikki Haley and her husband Michael Haley until she entered politics. I created this article, rather than stuff information about this company into Haley's article, and also because it could be linked from the article about her husband. Note that the search bar verifies copious sourcing not yet in the article, both from fairly extensive coverage in the press in India, and in Haley's published campaign biography, Can’t is Not an Option. So, while it may not fit the usual model of WP:CORP, it does pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't say that it was merely "Nikki Haley's Mother's" company. I said it was a successful small company, but the notoriety seems linked to Nikki. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note To be clear, Haley worked for this company during her tenure in the state legislature, leaving when elected Governor. The article is, imho, reasonable well-sourced; and the info in should be WP:PRESERVED (usefulness to our users is indicated by the hundreds of hits it get daily. It could, I suppose, be merged into Nikki Haley, but that article is already long and growing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikki_Haley#Personal_life -- not independently notable. A few sentences or a short paragraph can be added there; this will also preserve the article history, and anything useful can be picked up from there. What makes this interesting is "daughter of immigrants", "Indian-American politician", so it's best covered in Ms Haley's article. The section on the family is quite short, so this addition would improve the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that details on the company are WP:RSed: founding date, what they sold, annual revenue. Multiple stories in reliable media, by no means all of them about Nikki Haley (South Carolina media covered the company; I found multiple, additional non-Nikki sources about the pre-political career in a news archives search). But notability that results in part from having CFO become a notable politician - so that the corporate history gets written up in The New York Times and The Economist (substantively, albeit as part of a profile of Haley,) is notability. Even if she is a Republican, a Trump appointee, and a probable future candidate. In fact, especially because of that. Haley is young (well, compared to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump she's young,) and interest in her is intense. The Nikki Haley article will grow, making this a logical fork.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Economist about Nikki that mentions the company (or time she worked there) is coverage about Nikki, not the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV : "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. "E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I have edited the page to make the significance that The Economist attributes to working in Mom's shop in shaping Haley's political ideas clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that it doesn't have to be the focus, but it's quite peripheral. If an article talks about how much influence the little league baseball coach had and how lessons of leadership were learned on the field, that little league team doesn't become notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, not "peripheral" to the article in the Economist; as editors can read for themselves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Redirect to Nikki_Haley#Personal_life. The fact that it's closed makes it highly unlikely to ever achieve notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this company continues to accrue notability because Nikki Haley regularly gives major speeches where she says stuff like, ""They loved the fact that only in America could we be as successful as we wanted to be and nothing would stand in our way,... My parents started a business out of the living room of our home and, 30-plus years later, it was a multi-million dollar company."[48], and because public interest in the family business and the temptation to do as the The Economist did and write about how the business shaped her political philosophy will continue to grow as long as her name continues to be mentioned [49] for national office. (Note that the article gets ~20,000 page views per month). I continue to see this as a practical content fork for Nikki Haley E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 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.