Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 April	20 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Robert Godwin[edit]

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

No indication that the event will have long lasting importance Jax 0677 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of reliable sources, and it has definitely led to a flurry of criticism of Facebook's response to the video that was posted. Mark Zuckerberg promised changes to Facebook in that regard in the future. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cannot always judge, within less than a week of the start of an event, how or why the event will have "long lasting importance". This event has certainly received the requisite national (and international) coverage and has generated commentary and controversy that continues even now, after the event itself has played out. General Ization ^Talk 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This might be just another "one of many" story, but this one matters too. --Matt723star (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above arguments. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @Jax 0677 -- unfortunately nothing about this killing was particularly unique or new in today's world. Repugnant, self-absorbed hedonist thug kills innocent person and then kills himself like coward after being cornered by cops. Quis separabit? 03:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is...this crime wouldn't have been notable if it weren't for the Facebook video and Facebook's response. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm generally not in support of crime events like this getting their own article (e.g., every time we have a school shooting...) but this case is more notable for the Facebook video, Facebook's response to criticism, and the manhunt. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the case itself, rather than the killer or the victim, has some notability. Deb (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasons. DrachenFyre (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quirks of this case will make it more likely to be searched for as an encyclopedic topic. bd2412 T 12:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG because the event was reported and discussed widely in the media, and "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A high profile murder case, enough media coverage to pass GNG. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the Christopher Dorner manhunt has a page, why not this? According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." TBMNY (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has plenty of reliable sourcesHadomaru (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It really does fits requirements and during the event it was covered heavily by notable resources which are found in the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shreveport-Bossier City-Minden CSA[edit]

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

The Shreveport-Bossier City-Minden CSA was eliminated in 2013 when the Minden micropolitan area was eliminated and merged into the Shreveport-Bossier MSA. AllisonFoley (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is not temporary. "Pepper" @ 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you think the CSA link should be a redirect to the MSA article since it is the exact same region? AllisonFoley (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge, potentially. I don't know if there's a difference between the ways CSAs and MSAs are handled by the census, but I'd still be inclined to keep the CSA article as a notable historic political entity. "Pepper" @ 01:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No longer exists" is not a valid deletion argument. A definition of the CSA will continue to be useful indefinitely for anyone interpreting statistics reported in terms of the CSA during the period it did exist. --do ncr am 15:17, 17 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)}} 23:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was notable when it existed and Notability is not temporary.
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - once notable, always thusly. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)[edit]

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

Blp1e at best but fails pornbio and im not convinced this passes gng. Focus primarily on her being a muslim escort/porn performer is too unbalanced without additional notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage of her status as a Muslim in porn does not fall under the WP:BLP1E exception. That porn unicorn status satisfies criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO and coverage in Daily Beast [1], Broadly [2], International Business Times [3], India Today [4] and Daily Pakistan [5] satisfies the WP:GNG. The seeking of balance by the nomination is just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as user Morbidthoughts stated the coverage of her status as a Muslim in porn does not fall under the WP:BLP1E exception, and per the seeking of balance by the nomination is just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Jobas (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search shows that she passes the GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not consider coverage to be significant and sufficiently independent. For example, the source providing the most citations is an interview: "Muslim Adult Performer Nadia Rani On Reconciling Her Job With Her Religion". I don't see encyclopedically relevant content here just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created a dab page for the namesake of the subject last year. The article passes WP:GNG, with articles such as this one highlighting the fact that she "made headlines in February after critics from around the world levied death threats and other histrionic condemnations at her". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:33, 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)}} 23:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initial Google Search and Google News found enough sources to pass the notability criteria. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elton-Rodrigues: Could you please list two or three sources that you'd consider particularly strong? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Yea sure. Here some of references I found related to Nadia Ali, I am listing

Daily Bhaskar - Click here
ABP News - Click here
Dailyo - Click here
International Business Times- Click here
Yibada - Click here
India Today - Click here
The Daily Beast - Click here
Indian Times - Click here
Daily Pakistan - Click here
Refinery29 - Click here
The Sun (United Kingdom) - Click here
Merinews - Click here
Broadly - Click here
International Business Times - Click here
Dainik Jagran - Click here

She has been extensively covered in international media. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I stand by my comment that these are not suitable. Most are retelling of the interview and some are just photo galleries. As in "look, a port actress wearing a hijab!!". I don't see this biography to be encyclopedically relevant; tabloid trivia at best. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO; likelwise, whilst it is true that individually, some of the sources are weak, taken as a body they demonstrate a degree of WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE required by WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying all WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as explained above --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:48, 26 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadi Begum[edit]

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

Mostly it is Original Research. Furthermore it does not satisfy notability by itself, so the only mention should be on the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article, and that too with RS. Thirdly it uses known hate site "irshad" (I have no idea why it has not been black listed yet). There is also a concern about some information being bogus, but I think instead of CSD an XFD is better. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 16 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)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom: in fact, WP:NUKE applies. It is complete WP:OR, totally WP:POV, and in fact WP:PULPIT. There are no WP:RS for this lady dying in 1966; only a more recent set of events (a presumably unrelated woman, currently held captive in Pakistan) which I assume are unrelated. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:21, 26 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 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Wade[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. Only sources located were primary and one PR source. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD fails wp:BEFORE. Per WP:NCORP.

Added New York Times article about Garrett Wade http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/garden/where-to-find-it-tools-for-carvers-and-cabinetmakers.html
Added link to Lie Nielsen Wikipedia page, which is the original source that links to the Garrett Wade page Lie Nielsen Toolworks.
Added Lee Valley customer letter talking about their early relationship with Garrett Wade: http://www.leevalley.com/us/home/page.aspx?p=46993&cat=60655,46992.
Added product development sentence with references to tools developed in-house. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCORP. Added reference to NY Times article Helpful Hardware - Tools that Measure (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/12/garden/helpful-hardware-tools-that-measure-by-barbara-l-eisenberg-and-mary-smith.html)
Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP. I've added more sources to address original AFD nomination. I welcome edits to the page as I am new to this. I respectfully object to deletion as I've added sources including multiple NYT articles and Garrett Wade is iconic in the woodworking and mail order/catalog industries. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Keep - The NY Times article is a very good one for establishing notability. Others, like Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen aren't what would be considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. However, coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics, and coverage about them in a book about social media do establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the sources above from Whpq User talk:Whpq. Thanks! Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company has multiple New York Times articles covering them here, here, and here. They have coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics. They also have coverage in a book about social media.Philip Murphy (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: When I created my profile, I listed my job as "Marketing Manager at Garrett Wade. It still reflects that. I do receive a yearly salary from Garrett Wade. Per recommendation from Whpq I am explicitly disclosing COI here and will refrain from making future edits unless explicitly asked to do so by admins. Thank you for your help with rules. I thought I was in compliance. I respect Wikipedia and do not want to break the rules.Philip Murphy (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article at this point isn't at all promotional, so there's no issue with it looking like advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass NCORP L3X1 (distant write) 16:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCORP. The multiple NY times definately establish notability --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:50, 26 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 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinoceros Tap[edit]

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

Previous nomination ended in deletion. Article barely contains any information and only two references. Few Google hits. The article could possibly be merged into Sandra Boynton JDDJS (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an RIAA Certified Gold album, so it meets criterion #3 at WP:NALBUMS, a factor that was not mentioned in the previous deletion discussion. It's a first album from an artist who has gone on to be major in her field - in this case, not a recording artist but a composer. Has served as the basis for Boynton books, as she adapted Tickle Time and Barnyard Dance - and apparently the book of Barnyard Dance is "among Publishers Weekly’s Bestselling Children Books of All Time." --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Here's a reference direct from Publishers Weekly of that claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (Actually, checking dates - Barnyard Dance predates the recording, so the song is based on the book. Perfect Piggies and Tickle Time!, however, are derived from the songs. My error.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why that information can't simply be merged to Sandra Boynton? The article is short enough that it won't significantly affect it's length. JDDJS (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't? Perhaps not. Shouldn't? I think so. This article should stay here to expand. I added to it the other day with things that I could fine online, but as this is a 1996 album, while that's not pre-internet, that's pre-everything-is-on-the-Internet. And while Boynton is the biggest name associated with this recording, I'm not sure that there's any other Gold record filed in its lyricist's article. (Indeed, this album may qualify vocalist Adam Bryant for an article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 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)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fraktur (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. The only other topic is Fraktur (folk art) which is prominently displayed in a hatnote. I think the spelling is too far off to be confused with Fracture, but I've added it to the hatnote just in case. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn my nomination. Thanks for finding those additional entries! -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it is not ambiguous with fracture. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not an expert on the insanely complex policy in this area but I believe per WP:TWODABS that it can be kept as it could be expanded with other entries called Fraktur. There's a short film by Hans Steinbichler, a German magazine[6], various books including by Albert Kapr (who as an author is on German Wikipedia but not here), songs, and a Marvel character[7] (List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters:_F#Fraktur wrongly links to Fraktur, which doesn't mention him, but I can't see if there was previously relevant content that has since been deleted). None of these may be notable but could be covered in larger articles. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added WP:DABMENTION-passing links to the aforementioned short film and Marvel Comics character (mentioned in Nova Corps). bd2412 T 13:08, 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 modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per significant consensus after prolonged discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wohl[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for this 19 year old hedge fund manager (own business) and political operator. The references seem mainly primary. The previous AFD last June resulted in delete, this article is a bit different so G4 doesn't apply.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not in any sense a notable person but rather a teenager seeking publicity. I agree with the consensus expressed at the previous AfD debate. I looked at the references and calling them weak is an understatement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I withdraw my recommendation to delete because of improvements by Icewhiz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was unanimous "Delete" in the AfD 7 months ago. Pinging @Drmies, Fieari, SwisterTwister, ThePlatypusofDoom, Sir Joseph, Glane23, and Johnpacklambert:. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Things haven't changed since last time, except that he was campaign manager for a Mayoral candidate (who got 1.26% of the vote), which adds nothing to his notability. Neiltonks (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak~~ Keep (but only if this balanced to NPOV and includes his lifetime ban from NFA prominently - which developed since then). First off there is quite some coverage of him since July 2016 - [8], including reputable sources: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] . Seems he is now under a lifetime ban from NFA (National futures association) which he is making various claims about, and this has generated some coverage. Quite a bit has actually changed since the last Afd.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) mod:Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I NPOVed the article a bit + added significant negative information (lifetime ban by NFA + cease and desist orders for fraud by Arizona) + some sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - I believe the article was auto-bioed (in a very promotional manner) in Wikipedia at the end of February - to draw attention away / SEO away significant negative information that was breaking out regarding him (lifetime ban by NFA, fraud allegations leading to cease and desist orders against himself and companies). However the trigger was actually significant negative news. And this is beyond WP:BIO1E as his activities were receiving some coverage before the allegations.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the additions made by Icewhiz, this is now a much different article than it was earlier when it was initially deleted following its first AFD. It now appears that there are enough mentions in reliable sources to satisfy notability, particularly WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable person and the article will be a high maintenance article with edit warring. Not worth it. Knox490 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- even with recent improvements, this is still a page on an unremarkable individual. Does not amount to notability or significance to justify an encyclopedia article. Could be draftified if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with last comment for delete as the coverage is temporary at present and the notoriety is not significant Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is significant in my mind for 3 reasons (and the significant coverage he's achieved as a result):

1. The teenage hedge fund manager claim.

2. The fraud allegations.

3. Most significant - the novel legal approach setting precedent in responding to regulatory oversight (in this case an SRO). He basically did not respond to any call, doorbell, etc. and claimed the agents were trespassing ("get off my lawn") + attempted to withdraw from the NFA (which claimed this was not in force until enough time elapsed). This led to him being a regular feature in Matt Levine's columns[17] - and he's a heavy hitter, with appearances here: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] - some of these are mentions (as he as a "feature"", some in-depth. This was covered by other venues as well.

1+2 - passing though interesting in a tabloid sort of way. 3 - the precedent - probably keeps him in scope for years to come.

And finally - if this is the amount of noise he's made by 19, he'll probably keep on making noise (garnering coverage) - might as well have a balanced article as opposed to promo fluff.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not attempting to skew the result, but if this article stays, a whole bunch of people are going to need to keep it on their watch lists, because the SPAs etc. have been and will be edit-warring to remove the negative and replace the promo. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if it goes - we'll have to monitor "The Wohl of Wallstreet", "Jacob <Initial> Wohl", "Jacob <middlename> Wohl", and a whole host of instafirms he's been involved with (and in each - someone will have to figure the real significance (and not the fluff)). The existing name article could be semi-protected if that's a concern.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And if it goes - we'll have to monitor "The Wohl of Wallstreet", "Jacob <Initial> Wohl", "Jacob <middlename> Wohl", and a whole host of instafirms he's been involved with". No, we won't. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHe has been in the news for a couple of matters, but I do not see the quantity and quality of reliable secondary sources required to satisfy notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog for self promotion even if some negative information is added for "balance.". Edison (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form (and I'm watching the page for any advert) - it far from self-promotion - as the coverage of Wohl is, umm, quite negative, an NPOV article on him (which is what this is at the moment) - even if tonewise slightly-positivish due to BLP, is still a negative - at the moment after the first line and half, the rest of the text block is quite negative. He has actually received quite a bit of coverage - and quite probably with the way things are developing will receive quite some more.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still very few comments since all those new sources have been added. Would like to be a bit more sure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a hedge fund manager does not make one notable, nor does being the campaign manager for a candidate who recieved less than 2% of the vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing notable about him. References seems to be PR stuffs. Merely self promotion --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 22 references in the current article, 12 are highly negative (due to his ban from NFA and other questionable practices). Wohl has definitely been pumping the PR machine - but that is not the case in the current article - as most coverage in reliable sources has shifted from the initial coverage of him being a "17 year old hedge fund manager" to his actual business practices.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 23 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. Article desperately needs an overhaul but I don't see any consensus here that the topic isn't viable. Low participation levels so WP:NPASR. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disability and religion[edit]

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

Content presented here doesn't require own article. Very brief, confusing article with no clear scope. Unencyclopedic. Also fails WP:PN RoCo^(talk) 06:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Delete without prejudice to recreation - There's no distinct subject being presented here, so it's hard to evaluate notability based simply on the article title. It begins "Topics on religion and disability..." and mentions what some dissertations talk about, whereas the page would need to be about "religion and disability", citing dissertations (or, preferably, published works) to support a summary of the topic. If executed well, this can be a distinction without a difference, indeed, but here I just don't see anything workable. No prejudice against speedy recreation, however, as it's possible (even probable) that the title could be a viable topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disability is a topic of frequent discussion in many religions. Therefore the article could easily be expanded. The terms "disability" with "religion" gets 335,000 hits on google books. 88.104.33.40 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think this page is a notable topic anologous to disability and poverty and disability and sexuality. 2.101.52.59 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now the page almost completely consists of patent nonsense and I don't see it developing into a concise article. RoCo^(talk) 07:42, 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 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPHAIR[edit]

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

Not enough independent sources to proof notability. The Banner talk 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesnt appear to be particulary noteworthy although the rather bad english makes it hard to actually understand what the article is about, I had to use a google translation of the sphair.ch website to understand it is just a screening process for candidates, hardly worth an article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad English is NOT a reason for deletion.. native English speaker can improve it easy. SPHAIR is notable, because it is the first step in Switzerland for all future militarypilots, airlinerpilots, Military parachutists, Military and civil Air traffic Controllers and al Searc& rescue Pilots. SPHAIR is a "substitut2 of the Swiss Air Force, Swiss International Airlines Ldt. REGA Air Rescue Service an Skyguide (Air Traffic control) under the lead of the Swiss Air Force. Absolutly notable for Wikipedia. Just an other manhunt against me from the Banner.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not nominated it for bad English but for lack of independent sources to prove that it is noteworthy. The Banner talk 07:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as presented for stand alone article; could mention in the appropriate Swiss air article or articles. Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No Swiss Air Force pilot is going to become a pilot without them. --MBurch (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a guide into joining the Swiss Air Force, all pilot (and military) jobs need a selection process it doesnt make them notable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne, no not all jobs need (such) an Selection process (also not all jobs in Aviation). Also it is more than just selection. Also it is not only for Jobs by the Swiss Air Force, it is also for civil SAR , for airliners and Air Traffic Controller, so it covers much more than just the Swiss Air Force.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be suprised if you could find a professional or military pilot job that doesnt include some sort of selection process. In the end this is just a localised variant of what is standard practice in aviation and a lot of other fields, and as such not really noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a local variant, it is a National wide and the one in Ch&FL, and not only for Mil/civ pilots.. also for Mil/Civ Airtraffic controller therefore it is notable.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local variant in this context means Switzerland, this encyclopedia is not Swissapedia and this is one of tens of thousands of selection procedures/processes around the world none of them noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But is the institution also for people from France, Germany, Italy Austria who want become a civil airliner pilot, Air Traffic controller, or SAR Crew by an swiss airliner, skyguide or REGA. And again it is not only selection it is also basic teaching.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, I wonder if this might be a topic that could be covered as a section in a larger article, rather than as a stand alone article? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea: this does seem a rather standard type of assessment for aspiring military pilots so isn't likely to be notable in its own right. It could be merged into a Pilot selection and training in the Swiss Air Force article or similar. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But ist is not only for for aspiring military pilots, it is also for military parajumpers, and for civilian aspiring airliner pilots, civilan search&recue Rega (air rescue) crews and civilian Air Traffic controller skyguide and military Tactical Fighter controller (also from skyguide).FFA P-16 (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a recruitment tool; this content belongs on the org's web site:

"Sphair also paves the way for the recruitment..." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 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. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. All albums by this label are redlinks. Online results are affiliated or passing mentions. Article itself says "Syntax currently is not actively signing artists or releasing music". Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:13, 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz in Jeans[edit]

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

A non-notable EP article the merely states its existence. No chart listings or significant coverage whatsoever. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 23 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. And rename, I guess. Sandstein 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Cousin Vinny” Agnello[edit]

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

Sources are YouTube videos and Amazon. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, and can't find any other notability criteria that automatically makes them notable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Louis Anthony Agnello and get rid of the "Cousin Vinny" part in the title. If we're going to pick one of his many monikers, I'm personally leaning towards "The Stripper King of New York" (lol!). Seems more famous with the press as an oddball and public figure, and in that regard passes WP:GNG. [26] [27] [28] [29]. Yvarta (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we merge to a non-existent article? Or was there a now-deleted article there? Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 20 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} 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnello is a published author with a major agency whatever his background may be. His bookcover carries "Cousin Vinnie" as the authors name and anyone searching for him from the book would be looking for that, not 'the Stripper King' no matter how appealing that might be to some. Cited 'copyright' infringements have been removed, links have been added and we'd like this project to move forward. Any reasonable changes needed will be made but Let us see a list of said violations please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamamac (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of an idle sense of curiosity, who is the we to which you refer? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing the discussion about this man's journey from lurid stripper to published author. This truly American tale is far from over, and his fans have been asking him, on his recent book tour much of which was picked up by the faith oriented media and well received, why he had no Wiki page.
As we said before if it is matter of content or formatting, adjustments can be made. His 2nd book 'the Vengeance of the Manager is currently available on Amazon with another in work. Interest in the movie rights for Devil's Glove has been shown as well.

Why does this have a quote about "Savannah Morning News entertainment writer Linda Sickler’s profile piece" and not use that profile piece for a source? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has sufficient press coverage to be notable (including major Florida press and some national publications), and although it's a weak and stubby article right now, issues about promotional content and article titling can be handled. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing encyclopedically relevant here; a promotional / fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm discounting coverage in Florida papers as local; but the article cites a fairly lengthy 2017 piece from the San Jose Mercury-News. There's fairly extensive coverage of a 2001 episode in which Agnello provided strippers to a high-school football team's party in Westchester, NY (NY Daily News, NY Post, NY Times). His shooting in a 2008 robbery attempt was briefly covered in the Los Angeles Times and the NY Daily News. I've found lots of coverage of his 2009 conflict with the Subway chain, e.g. CBS News, guest blog at Bloomberg. No editorial reviews of The Devil's Glove at Amazon, and I can't find sales figures for the book; but that doesn't necessarily signify. I'd say that we've got enough coverage over a long enough time to establish general notability, and to put together a decent article. The current article is lousy, but low article quality generally hasn't been accepted as grounds for deletion. Ammodramus (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Ammodramus, particularly the San Jose Mercury News article, establish that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 27 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 00:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dewrance & Co. Ltd[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Dewrance & Co. Ltd. Neither its text nor its sources show that it "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP after Google showed nothing to add secondary sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly surprising that a company which folded so long ago does not have much internet presence. The three sources quoted are however reliable and independent, and I expect to find more printed sources. Besides the company had a steam engine named after it. that is pretty good evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources show this company existed which is not in dispute. However, nothing indicates it is notable. WP is not a comprehensive business directory. Fails WP:NCORP. MB 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British Government repeatedly recognised the importance of the company by awarding honours to its employees. Its records are stored in the British National Archives. Involvement with the first viable steam locomotive seems quite notable.Rathfelder (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has undergone a significant transformation since the last "delete" vote. More comments needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81 and MB: Any revised thoughts in light of the new sources and content? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were still primary and

No comment with respect with the sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is meant by "The sources were still primary". Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are just mentions of the company in directories. Nothing here to make it notable. I don't find the whole Recognition section to really add anything either to the companies notability. There is one statement that its products have become collectable. The one ref about that seems to be just a auction/sale listing - not independent coverage. If there was such coverage today in publications that write about collectables, that might be the best way to establish notability. But as of now, everything still looks routine. See WP:PRIMARY. MB 23:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a company's employees are repeatedly given awards by the government, the government puts its records into the national archives and a rival firm names a steam engine after it I think that is good evidence of notability.Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether this is a good article with good sources. The question is whether the subject is notable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 25 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Steinberg (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not based on nearly enough quality reliable source coverage to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in WP:NPOL #2. Although this cites 19 sources, and I'll certainly give some credit to people for trying harder than any of the other mayors in the same region that I've also nominated in this go-round, the vast majority of them are either primary sources or local community weekly newspapers that don't count for very much toward WP:GNG -- the only sources that actually show notability at all here are the handful of citations to the Montreal Gazette, and two of those three are routine coverage of election results, which leaves the third (a fracas over the town's advertising contract with one of the same community weeklies being cited elsewhere in the article) as a WP:BLP1E incident of no enduring notability. There's a lot of WP:UNDUE weight on minor trivia here ("In debates, Sternthal considered learning French to be essential in Quebec, but Steinberg stated that his lifelong hearing condition prevents him from learning a new language"), but very little noteworthy substance, and nowhere close to the depth or breadth of sourcing needed to grant him an NPOL pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:N and WP:GNG. The mentions in the press fail to describe his biography.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 23 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Ruest-Jutras[edit]

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

Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of this, at a time when Wikipedia's inclusion standards for mayors were a lot looser and a lot less dependent on clearing WP:GNG than they are now -- the standard really once was that as long as the city surpassed 50K in size, the mayor was automatically in regardless of whether the sourcing in the article actually went much beyond basic verification of her existence. But that's not the standard that pertains today; the idea that the city's population constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself has now been deprecated, and the standard is now much more strongly tied to whether the depth and breadth of sourcing gets the mayor over GNG or not regardless of the city's size. But the necessary depth and breadth of sourcing just isn't here. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Sailing Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Current sourcing consists solely of listing and primary sourcing. Searches turned up 4 trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this entry of leading active sports club on the region.--Banderas (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I cannot find any suitable sources demonstrating that this club meets WP:ORGCRITE as having "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" nor meeting WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organisation with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements" AusLondonder (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*delay deleting and instead expand/source article. Banderas made the important point of: "I don't see any reason to delete this entry of leading active sports club on the region." Onthe other hand, AusLondonder mad ea good point as well which was: " Unfortunately I cannot find any suitable sources demonstrating that this club meets WP:ORGCRITE as having "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" nor meeting WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organisation with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements"" I think we should delay deleting the article and expand/source the article. Dean Esmay (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some sources have apparently been added since the most recent "delete" vote. Any changes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google and Google News searches turn up no independent in-depth coverage. Passing mentions, quotes from members, directory entries, and the club's own website, but nothing else. Fairly clear WP:GNG fail. Ammodramus (talk) 02:46, 27 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bragga[edit]

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

The EP fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Since its release in September 2016, it has never been discussed in reliable sources. The EP didn't receive full length reviews, nor charted on any country's national music charts. The sources in the article are press releases about the EP. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:16, 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry DeCarlo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 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) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Janiszewski[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as mayor of a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass. This just barely goes any further than "he exists", and sources the fact exclusively to a community weekly newspaper and a student newspaper at one of the nearby universities, neither of which are sources that can carry a WP:GNG pass by themselves. The inclusion criterion for local politicians is "who have received significant press coverage", but that's not being shown here, and he doesn't inherit an inclusion freebie just because his predecessor became a federal MP either. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayor of a minor locality with no other claim to fame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think he fails WP:GNG, as I can find no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only notable things about him seems to be the fact that he has served as mayor for so long. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 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'll restore and draftify upon request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Joachim Hurtak[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Practically the entire content is based on Hurtak's own work. I haven't found anything better, at least not in remotely reliable sources (see here for the probably less reliable sources that cover Hurtak's less mainstream work which currently is not discussed in the article). Huon (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single cite on GS, so no pass of WP:Prof. Maybe other people can find more. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Due to life events, it's been years since I've worked on Wikipedia entries so please forgive any lack of proper formatting in this reply comment. I did reply on the "talk" page for this but want to mention here as well that I am currently researching. I see the valid points raised. Is it appropriate for me to take down the article while I work on it? --Nel4316 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article depends on primary sourcing, appears to be a non-notable WP:FRINGE theorist. Article creator Nel4316 asks to have it moved to userspace, but it was created 3 years ago. User:Nel4316 can you provide some sources that indicate that, given time, a reasonable article could be created?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 24 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoko Goto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable adult actress; significant coverage that discuss the subject directly and in detail not found. The article has been a subject of several AfDs, with the most recent (2008) closing as "No consensus". Arguments for a "Keep" included "well known" and "has a lot of titles on Amazon". To accompany this, the current copy includes:

"In late 2010, more than six years after her debut, Japanese Amazon still listed 32 DVDs and two VHS tapes featuring her".

Sources used are either primary or not independent of the subject. The WP:PORNBIO guidelines have been significantly tightened since then, so I think it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely survived multiple AFDs almost a decade ago when catering to breawt fetishists was considered strong evidence of notability, but fails today's rational standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:13, 23 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Pavone[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the mayor of a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability. At this size of city, a mayor's includability lives or dies on how well the article can be reliably sourced, but all we have here for substance is that he existed and all we have for referencing is one piece of media coverage in which he gives a brief soundbite about the public transit system and one piece of routine election-summary coverage about the election of his successor. This isn't even close to enough referencing to get him past the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local politicians. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 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 speedily deleted by Orangemike per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carson (artist)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources to provide notability. Some passing mentions, profiles, etc. bojo | talk 21:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original author has been blocked for COI violations. bojo | talk 21:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as obvious advertisement - article was purely promotional, written in marketing language by an account whose name is that of a gallery with a commercial interest in Carson. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 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 A7 by User:Sarahj2107 (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Halcin[edit]

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

Can't seem to find much about his notability from google searches bojo | talk 21:00, 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) 22:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl (Jeanne) Prause Poole[edit]

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

Can't seem to find anything to support her notability. bojo | talk 20:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been speedied for no sources on a BLP. Probably could also be speedied as A7 in not making any assertion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim of significance is made in the article. Pichpich (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient sources available to substantiate any claims to significance, let alone notability, whatsoever. Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 26 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) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chokey Chicken[edit]

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

I think that this may be deleted using A7. No references and no links. May also be A11. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of deleting the article entirely. --Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - Redirect to Rocko's Modern Life or A7 as it is WP:FANCRUFT.
Delete as it does not have any signs of notability for an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will never be notable on its own. Redirect it to Rocko's Modern Life if desired. 108.34.151.191 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as above, and as per WP:CB. No significance whatsoever. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:35, 26 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) 22:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Baldwin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - only one role of any significance. Fails WP:AUTHOR - no significant secondary reporting on her Web TV show, only local significance Rogermx (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actress lacking significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 23 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. Undisclosed paid editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The APX[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:COMPOSER, WP:Band and their recorded music fails WP:NALBUM. I have been unable to find evidence that their one single has charted on any country's charts so far, no collateral/associated notability & the single fails WP:SINGLE. Shearonink (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost certain violation of WP:PAID, too. --Yamla (talk) 19:41, 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits against the Devil[edit]

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

Does not warrant its own page. Article does not cover the overall subject, just two instances. Fails WP:IINFO. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This doesn't seem to be a thing, as searches for the article's title, as well as other, similar phrases turn up nothing except for mirrors of this article and information on the movie that is mentioned. One silly court case, which was thrown out, and one minor movie on the subject do not make this a notable topic, and there seems to be no scholarly sources on the topic. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be a form from Lawsuits against God, and has been extant for eight years. Perhaps it should be merged back, or into some Lawsuits against supernatural beings? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with mattbuck, the two pages could be combined, especially as the first listed lawsuit against God sounds more like a suit against the devil. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above, this should be merged somewhere appropriate, but there's not enough here for its own article. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major theme in Western literature. certainly keep, just needs improvement. I did a small expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC) independent of[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The fictional content is significant enough to keep. The one actual attempt failed because the proceedings could not be served, but it is worth noting. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we studied United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff in civil procedure in law school. The fictional works that include law suits against the devil are also notable. This is a valid list article although not formatted as such. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we talked about this in one of my legal classes. It's a real issue for standing. Although my favorite still has to be the Motion to Kiss My ***, and the lawsuit written on toilet paper. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:19, 25 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) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaunchDon[edit]

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

This new company does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The hiphopdx and and vladtv.com references are passing mentions (LaunchDon is not "featured" in these references, as misleadingly claimed in the article text). The triplehq reference is a dead link. LaunchDon is not mentioned at all in the abc13 and dayandadream references. Edgeweyes (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recently-launched enterprise. Notability is not conferred by passing mentions or game sponsorship. The claim to uniqueness in its field is sourced to a dead link but identical wording can be found here, indicating it was a press release. (There are also pre-existing platforms offering music business advice, such as this in the UK.) Searches return a Q&A promotional item but no evidence of attained notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, article is merely a vehicle fo WP:PROMO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:39, 26 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) 22:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lucas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A career minor leaguer, it appears he hasn't played since 2012. He's a member of the Dakota County Technical College hall of fame, but that's nowhere near the level of "major hall of fame" as required by WP:NBASE -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable baseball player who has never moved beyond the minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom / WP:NBASE; also fails WP:ANYBIO in any case, as no sources provide the coberage required. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:37, 26 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) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor battles in The Lord of the Rings[edit]

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

Not a notable article nor list (per WP:LISTN)--which is even indicated by the title of the article. I redirected this list without merging based on a short discussion that sat undiscussed except by one other editor for 10 months. As soon as I did so, the edits were reverted--and the discussion which ensued showed no evidence the reverting editor understood policy or guideline on the point (reference Talk:Middle-earth wars and battles#Proposed merge with Minor battles in The Lord of the Rings).

I am happy to accept either a redirect, a delete and then redirect, or a straight delete, but what I am not happy to accept is letting a subpar article remain when there are at least two editors who believe it should be redirected. Izno (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially just a plot summary of a bunch of unrelated, minor fights that occurred in the LotR books that were used to make this cobbled together article. There is nothing but plot here, and the only source being used is also being used to support nothing but more plot information. The various incidences covered in this article are either already covered in the plot sections in the articles of the appropriate books/movies, or are too unimportant to mention. A redirect wouldn't be particularly useful, as the title of the article was more or less made up for this article, and thus is not an especially useful search term. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A redirect is not necessary since this is not a likely searchable term. There is no encyclopedic value to a list of minor events in the book/movie series.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jclemens; no need for redirect per Gene93k- who's going to search for minor battles? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 26 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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 15:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Danger[edit]

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

An unremarkable adult actress. The article almost entirely consists on the awards/nomination table. No encyclopedically relevant prose & no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The awards listed -- Hottest Newcomer (Fan Award), Best New Starlet, etc. -- are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as veterans of pornography deletions you both should know that the AVN Award for Best New Starlet and the AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year are the two biggest awards which both pass WP:PORNBIO point 1. "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." This is clear policy. There's a reason we have templates for these awards and theres a reason every person has an article. GuzzyG (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to the statement provided by GuzzyG, the NightMoves Awards of 2016, in which she won Best Female Performer - Editor’s Choice. From one of the longest running Awards show and also one of the most distinguished awards given, after possibly AVN and also XRCO, where she also won an award in the New Starlet category. She also won the XBIZ award for Best New Starlet and another AVN award the following year under the Best Star Showcase category. Scenicview1 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification -- the article does not list Ms Danger as having won "Female Performer of the Year". In any case, per many recent AfDs, a technical SNG pass does not exempt an article from the requirement to provide sourcing that that discuss the subject of the article directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of even having the SNG if it can be bypassed by editors at their whim? GuzzyG (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing GNG and BLP requirements is hardly an example of whimsy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for the reasons explained by GuzzyG Glenn Francis (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons explained by GuzzyG and stated here WP:PORNBIO. Scenicview1 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC) — Scenicview1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The award wins may be significant, but IMDb profiles and IAFD film counts don't establish notability. Nearly every performer on film has an IMDb profile. The biographical details are user submitted and are not considered reliable. By its nature, pornographic output produces inflated film counts. Dozens of films can be cranked out over a weekend. Being prolific in porn was discounted as a notability criterion ten years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per GuzzyG. Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's sound analysis. Winning awards that do not reflect or result in reliable source coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; the applicable SNG clearly says as much. Notability generally rests on reliable source coverage, and the argument above that porn industry prominence and awards no longer consistently demonstrate reliable source coverage simply demonstrates that some aspects of PORNBIO may no longer accurately reflect GNG guidelines and BLP policy. If the claimed award no longer generates/reflects reliable source coverage, it is accurate to regard it as no longer significant, as the SNG uses that term. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Danger having won both AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ's Best New Starlet awards which passes WP:PORNBIO. This was established back in a straw poll determining which awards should be considered covered under PORNBIO and confirmed by the AFD for Gracie Glam. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to a list of winners sngs are signposts to likely notability but in cases where blps do not pass the gng they take second place. The bottom line is that danger does not have the required sources to have a blp. All we can verify from sources are the awards, if not deleted the traditional solution is to redirect to a list of winners until sources can be found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite the wall of text and litany of plainly unreliable sourcing provided by an obsessive fan, above, nothing here provides an adequate basis for keeping a BLP which so patently fails GNG standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an obsessive fan and to prove that, I've taken down most of my talking points. I'm an obsessive debater. Lets get that straight. Had I been an obsessive fan, I would have created her profile on wikipedia myself, rather than adding a few tidbits that I thought were relevant. Again, how is there no objection to the Mia Malkova wikipedia profile, that doesn't even get the day, month, and year of her birth exact but is ambiguous, and the sourced References on the bottom are even less reliable than on the Abella Danger profile. Take a look for yourself, if you don't believe me.^[1] Click on each reference on the bottom and tell me she deserves to be up, while Abella Danger needs to be taken down. If the Abella Danger profile page is taken down, then fine, I will agree to that conclusion. I'm more of a Mia Malkova fan, but for some reason nobody is objecting to her profile being up, while some of her References on the bottom are adequate at best or does not even lead to a legitimate site when clicked on. In fact, some of the facts on the Mia Malkova page written about in her profile, even appear to be questionable at best. For reference number 4, you're unable to click on to verify, Reference 6 appears to a blog written on a little known site, and Reference 8 leads to an error page. The others are from AVN and XBIZ sites that give what I would view to be legitimate and reliable sources, for the less prominent Awards she has won. I would disagree that the Mia Malkova awards are of less prominence, but under the wikipedia rules, they appear to be viewed as such. Which in that case, why is her profile still up. Being mentioned as a Twistys treat of the month and Twistys treat of the year, in her profile article, is something some may question as relevant to even mention or reference, as well. Scenicview1 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as AVN Award meets the #1 condition for Porn and per precedent by Morbidthoughts. The danger (no pun intended) here is the significant lack of reliable sources to say anything other than a stub. Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she meets the minimum requirements at the very least. Still, how is there a lack of reliable sources, when one of the References itself is from the AVN awards show internet site announcing the award being won, along with AVN also having video of Abella Danger receiving that award, along with the audience viewing her receiving the award or awards, that anyone may easily verify. This is the only thing I'm unable to understand in regard to verifiable sources that those who object to her profile, keep bringing up in the discussion. She was announced by AVN as the winner in front of a large audience of fellow performers, writers, directors, reporters, etc. in person and recorded on video, and possibly mobile devices as well. She was seen accepting the Award or Awards on stage as it was being handed to her directly by the announcers. This in turn led to the Announcement of the AVN winners on the Award winners site. It would be like Referencing the legitimate Oscars site, and then someone saying that it is not credible proof of a win, in regard to the Best Actress award winner. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While she meets WP:PORNBIO, WP:NOPAGE indicates that if it would be a permastub then still the subject should not have an article. Lacking any other reliable sources for her, she should not have an article. Spshu (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This individual has won multiple non-scene-related/non-ensemble awards from the four most well-known and significant award givers in the industry making this easily meet WP:PORNBIO criterion number 1. As long as criterion number 1 stands as is, biographies such as this one meet notability requirements. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as per everyone above - Has won significent & well known awards thus she meets PORNBIO #1 as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Davey's response was concise and to the point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova". wikipedia.

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

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

The result was merge to Grand River Transit. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iXpress[edit]

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

The article was marked as containing original research. Most of the text has no references and the only references are not independent (their own page and YouTube channel). I found many references that cite it using Google, but they mention mainly routes, no in depth coverage to be able to source the extensive text of the article. Following advice from the Teahouse I recomend that only the content that could be referenced with reliable sources be merged into the iXpress section of Grand River Transit Rogerx2 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question about iXpress article, this requires a merger discussion, not a deletion nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sections of an article being original research does not mean that the whole article must be considered to be, questionable unsourced statements can be removed. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 23:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There seems to already be a subsection at Grand River Transit which could indeed be expanded, and the notability of the operator is greater than that of the routes. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 23:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ERROR░__Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My recomendation is also to merge into the iXpress section of Grand River Transit only the material that can be properly sourced. --Rogerx2 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that according to a recent source I added to the article, both iXpress and ION routes will be merged into a new system by GRT. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as per WP:DISCUSSAFD the nominator usually does not add an extra vote, but there's no issue with commenting, and in this particular case I don't see this as a problem, because the goal appears to have been to merge, and the forming consensus appears to also support this. Quoting Cordless Larry: "this requires a merger discussion, not a deletion nomination". —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out PaleoNeonate. I changed my vote into a comment. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTIMETABLE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:44, 26 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 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Riebling[edit]

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

This is a non-notable attorney who has been involved in one incident noted by a couple of press sources but hasn't had anything substantial or sustained written about them in reliable sources as required for our notability standard. Fails WP:BIO. Incidentally the article was probably created for hire by an editor who is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Bri (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure "vanity page" is one of our terms but it surer fits. Subject is not notable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim: It's often called "vanity bio" in XfD discussions. That sort of implies "innocent" conflict of interest though, rather than paid self-promotion/PR which appears likely in this case, and is definitely not innocent. - Bri (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reliable, secondary and independent sources included do not talk in depth about the attorney only about an incident. Not notable. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 174.78.149.105 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC) original deletion suggestion appears politically motivated, given the available news that features Riebling talking Trump trademarks.[reply]
- Wow, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, a textbook argument to avoid in deletion debates. - Bri (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and the sources discuss the incident, not him, which means he cannot even pass WP:BLP1E. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:26, 26 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) 22:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Force[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Non-notable video game with little to no independent sources that would establish notability under WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an "in universe" page with no independent sourcing and no assertion of notability or significance. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -almost A7, certainly U5: WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:28, 26 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. Undisclosed paid editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Verma (Makeup Artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to be notable and the references are mostly blogs or portfolios for her. A Google News search turned up nothing for "Swati Verma Makeup Artist" (there is another Swati Verma who comes up related to financial reporting but unrelated). -- Dane ^talk 16:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dane, Please use "Swati Verma" makeup artist, to find the notability. "makeup artist" is her occupation not her name. I have seen resources about her that is why I posted. I think this topic has enough notability. Axtalent (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Axtalent: I tried multiple ways to locate this person and there is no reliable sourcing returning for her. Also, if you have a conflict of interest, please be sure to disclose that as required by the Wikimedia Foundations terms of use for paid contributions. -- Dane ^talk 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dane, Could not understand the logic. you have report my username as promotional. My personal name is Axtalent Hook. I do not know in my username, which point has provide evidence of paid editor. Axtalent (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Can only find social media and ad listings. MassiveEartha (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violations of WP:PAID here. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete badly sourced and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lockwood[edit]

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

Non notable baseball player. Never played professionally. Highest claim to fame was being a FRESHMAN all-american. Seriously why was this even created? Deprodded by article creator. Spanneraol (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable baseball player. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 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 as a copyvio of the website of the law firm he works for. Hut 8.5 20:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Adler (Franchise Lawyer)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem all that notable. Google search doesn't bring up much in the way of reliable sources that show notability. bojo | talk 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Schaffhausen[edit]

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

The school exists, but that's about it. Every source I've found online is either primary or just a listing. I've found no indication of notability, so it fails GNG. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I found a few mentions in news sources, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves (Rise Against album)[edit]

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

Should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL violations. There were additional sources attempted by the creator (though improper, they tried), but while these might relate to an album, none showed any album title, and especially no tracklist. Not even the German amazon source earlier added showed a tracklist or album art. With these factors missing, the article is also susceptible to WP:TPHL. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's just too soon to have verifiable info. Whilst it's nice to want to inform the fans, we must remain factual and verifiable. So far, I've only seen hints and speculation. Dloh cierekim 13:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
change to Keep happy to see it was just a little too soon. Dloh cierekim 02:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although at looks like this will be their next album or EP, we really can't say for sure what's actually going on until we get more details. Until then, I think it's okay to put off this article. With the limited info right now, maybe a brief mention on the band's page?

Alright, now that a single has been released and new info has come out about the album, I think this is a Keep. I'll try to maintain this article over the next few days. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concern seems to be that the album's title can't be sourced. What image am I looking at here? City Of Silver 02:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we now have verifiable sourcing? cool. Dloh cierekim 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kay then. I'll retract the AfD and wait for someone to archive. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:TOOSOON no longer applies --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:55, 26 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 under G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Raghav[edit]

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

non-notable WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per WP:G5, this article was created by suspected sock of User:MANOZ GYAASI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MANOZ GYAASI. --Stylez995 (talk) 17:57, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled phased launch[edit]

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

Not seeing any evidence that the term "controlled phased launch" is recognised in management theory. This article is evidently based on a MBA dissertation (see reference list). All the other references are about change management theory in general, leaving the article as a piece of "original research" : Noyster (talk), 10:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 10:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is so incoherent, even if there were a valid topic here, nothing to save from this one. Note that it somehow got added to the computing project, but nothing in the body gives any evidence it has to do with computers. Usually "launch" is a marketing event? My guess is somebody's attempt to coin a marketing buzzword? W Nowicki (talk) 21:10, 25 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 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother's International School, Upleta[edit]

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

Is this a GNG issue? All I can find are mirrors, directory entries and listings by examination boards. I'm not sure where we at at following the recent RfC regarding WP:NSCHOOL - the place obviously exists but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of coverage. Sitush (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The RfD has sadly been misunderstood. It wasn't about destroying the existing consensus, but merely about formalising it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I do not understand, given how many people were fearful that it would cause a raft of AfD nominations, which implies that they thought it might "destroy the existing consensus". (This article is a post-RfC creation, btw). I do know that passing mentions do not constitute meeting GNG, regardless of "longstanding precedent and consensus". To be honest, it sounds like you are invoking WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and I vaguely recall that being precisely the issue per the RfC, ie: it should not be used in this way. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please reread the purpose of the RfD. It was intended to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing. It was not intended to replace the consensus, since that has been arrived at over many years of AfDs. As I said, it's been misinterpreted (probably deliberately by a number of deletionists). And a number of secondary schools have been kept in AfDs since after the consensus has been cited. And no, I'm not "invoking WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", since that too has been deliberately misinterpreted by the deletionists. It's a summary of consensus, nothing more, and I have never cited it in any of the hundreds of school AfD discussions in which I have been involved. The consensus of hundreds of AfDs has not been undermined by a single RfD. That would make a mockery of WP's consensus-based model. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have re-read it. I still do not understand. How the heck does this particular school meet GNG? Forget the consensus because, like it or not, that is an OUTCOMES argument. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - For clarity, I am referring to this RfC. You keep saying RfD - are you referring to something else? - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, merely a slip of the key. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Necrothesp:--It's a summary of consensus, nothing more, and I have never cited it in any of the hundreds of school AfD discussions. followed by The consensus of hundreds of AfDs has not been undermined by a single RfD (and thus I keep !voting the same manner as before}}--what does it mean?You seem to be skilled enough with your words but sometimes it's better to try to make some sense.And to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing was a gem!Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 17:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG/WP:NORG. The sole keep !vote above badly mis-interprets the RFC which Sitush references, and especially, the consensus viewpoint expressed by the closing editor. "It is notable because schools are always kept per precedent" is exactly a SCHOOLOUTCOMES !vote, if even it does not reference SCHOOLOUTCOMES explicitly. If the keep !vote above sincerely believes reliable secondary nonregional sources exist for this school, he should bring those forth. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, I would accept a delete and redirect to Upleta#Education, where the school is located. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Directories such as this suggest it's a primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...although it is registered as secondary here, but its affiliation is described as "provisional" (probably because it only opened in 2012 and doesn't have any students beyond class VI). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Cordless Larry: May I conclude that you've done some searches for sources and that's all you're coming up with? —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found that source in the article history, C.Fred (not sure why it was removed), but yes, I did some searching too. I found quite a few mentions, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious lack of notability (DEL8) under NSCHOOLS. Rebb ing 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Copied from article talk page A412 (Talk • C) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is highly evident that this place exists. Read out the laws before commenting about the provisional affiliation. Here is the link affiliation bye-laws - cbseaff.nic.in It is very much the norms of CBSE affiliation. And don't go for the literal translation. It doesn't mean temporary -.- There are more than enough citations. And if one starts knocking at the right places and not the spammy webpages about schools, one can find enough data. ZealD (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is denying the school's existence, ZealD. The debate here concerns its notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Upleta#Education; delete and redirect okay. Although the school is accredited as a secondary school, there are no secondary students enrolled. All students are class VI or below.[30] Accordingly, it would need some substantial coverage per WP:GNG to warrant an article, and there is no evidence of such. I would prefer a merge, but I will not object if the article is deleted and the redirect then created. All I know is, at the end of the discussion, this school should not have a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That source only shows the accreditation. It is very common that true enrollment isn't updated every other week. In major developed countries, many independent, reliable sources about schools can be found on the Internet, beyond the scope of the trivial. However, outside those countries, and particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. This may involve researching local media, for example at a neighbouring library. Anyone living nearby ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.232.207 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — 103.220.232.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Internet coverage is actually pretty good in India but news media tends to be at regional level rather than local due to literacy issues (not much of a market at village/taluk or even single-town level etc). That media is usually available online. This idea that SYSTEMIC can be used as a bludgeon to keep articles needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These schools are important institutions within their communities and biographies of notable people often discuss their educational backgrounds including their attendance at secondary schools. An encyclopedia with well over five million articles certainly has room for such articles. If the existence of any given school cannot be verified, then I support deletion of such an article. But this clearly isn't the case here, (there are only 18761 CBSE recognised schools in India, as opposed to a total of 1.3 million schools) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh105 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Rajesh105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Re: use in biographies, notability is not inherited - that someone went there is not a reason to keep the article. Re: CBSE, I don't know where your figures come from but having multiple accreditation agencies is not uncommon and inevitably leads to institutions aligning with different ones. What makes the CBSE so special compared to any other? That it offers the much-criticised, nationalist NCERT exams? - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of discussions of articles for deletion is to get to the bottom of the idea: should an article be kept or deleted (or any of the other options available through the conclusion of an AfD such as merge). Ridiculing other editors and the education system of India, does not add to the value of the discussion but instead takes away from it.

All I am saying is References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD, which surely didn't take place considering this case, where the deletionist just nominated, for the lack of WP:GNG (primarily searching in the Google)

Re CBSE: Might as well Google and check the facts. It's right there. Rajesh105 —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is SYSTEMIC has been addressed above and the WP:BURDEN to source the article is not on the nominator, whose responsibility is only to do a WP:BEFORE as best they can. I did. The article can always be recreated if sources emerge in the future but if we're going to allow the "sources may exist offline" argument then we may as well abandon WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't easy to defend against deletion even though the school is no more notable than their counterparts in the region (many of those 'notable' ones have standalone articles consisting one or two lines) The School has been appreciated for their methods in more than enough local papers but they are circularised offline only (don't exist on the internet)

But some incubation time is warranted rather than upright debate on deleting the article.

The idea of rfc has certainly been misinterpreted and the already existent schools are being grandfathered while the new ones are COERCED and hovelled to the deepest burrows, hence SYSTEMIC. ZealD (talk)24 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand much of your latest comment (coerce?) but you're the article creator and you haven't provided the sources that you say are available. Sources do not have to be on the web. However, I'd like to see copies of them because you are also a single-purpose account and we have a lot of issues regarding promotion, misrepresentation of sources etc on India-related topics (sorry: no offence is intended). - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 04:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star World India[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a TV network which exists; NOTTVGUIDE doesn't apply to this article in any way. Plenty of sources in the article to attest to its existence. Nate • (chatter) 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At time of nomination, article was about 90% TV guide.[31] However, I might have been a bit hasty in my nomination, as I've stripped out this material and there's more there than I first thought.[32] Therefore, providing no-one adds all this back in, will withdraw nomination. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Café[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a TV network which exists; NOTTVGUIDE doesn't apply to this article in any way. Plenty of sources in the article to attest to its existence. Nate • (chatter) 13:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At time of nomination, article was about 90% TV guide.[33] However, I might have been a bit hasty in my nomination, as I've stripped out this material and there's more there than I first thought.[34] Therefore, providing no-one adds all this back in, will withdraw nomination. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Infinity[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a TV network which exists; NOTTVGUIDE doesn't apply to this article in any way. Plenty of sources in the article to attest to its existence. Nate • (chatter) 13:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At time of nomination, article was about 90% TV guide.[35] However, I might have been a bit hasty in my nomination, as I've stripped out this material and there's more there than I first thought.[36] Therefore, providing no-one adds all this back in, will withdraw nomination. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 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 Withdrawn, per this edit by the nominator, and in the absence of any other editors recommending deletion. Note that the article was moved to Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phir Bhi Tumko Chaahunga[edit]

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

Promotional. TrendSPLEND^✉ 08:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What type of sources needed for removing the article deletion template? Thanks. 59.94.25.88 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can either add sources to the article itself or list them. There should be sources that support that this song has received a significant amount of coverage from reliable, third-party sources and that it has been discussed in a greater context than just in film reviews, etc. Since this is an AfD, it is not quite as simple as removing the template. The template will be removed when this discussion reaches a consensus (after other users vote) or if the nominator withdraws the nomination. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it, I had created it after lot of hard work and devoting time, enough coverages are there for this articles in References section, It is Only Informative and not promotional (Anoptimistix (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: Do you have any comments on this? It would be more beneficial to explain your reasoning for bring this to AfD beyond a single word. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Delete. It must be surely removed as the whole article is presented as a promotional material. Upon that, the song was released only two days back, how can someone from his own opinion put a super-hit tag on this. Not every song which just becomes a hit, be given a place on Wikipedia. Such pages are only promotional.

TrendSPLEND^✉ 17:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: I think that this could be more of an example of WP:TOOSOON as the film has not been released yet, and the song was only released a few days ago (as you have mentioned). The song may become more notable in the future (by gaining more sustained coverage during the film's release), but right now it seems too soon for an article. Thank you for your response, and I look forward to hearing responses from other users. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: Hello, Where are the "hit", "superhit" tags, "promotion", "opinion" things in the article you are talking of? Valid references are given. You are assuming all of it. Specify it please. Is there any guidelines or rules about when (talking about time) to create Wikipedia article/s, as you wrote - "the song was released only two days back", "be given a place on Wikipedia". Thank You. 117.194.4.189 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No justified reason given for deletion, the article have a lot of sources references and even media coverage, just google it, you will find a lot of buzz is surrounding the song, its a popular song and highly notable, AfD was placed only to destroy the article. further when the article was created it was only after 2 days ,but still plenty of sources and coverages were for the subject due to its high notablity. the user who placed AfD only wanted to vandalise the wikipedia. (Anoptimistix (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Anoptimistix: @117.194.4.189: @Aoba47: Firstly, the creation of this article is purely a self-promotion of the film. Even if you want to add any information about the song, just add it to the film's page and there is no need of a separate article. Apart, the article is filled with phrases such as....(there's a long list) -- "soulful rendition", "shedding tears", "soothe the soul", "instant hit", "viral", "historical song", "quantum of love", "Mithoon's genius"...! I think it's enough. The main point here is that, it even didn't win any recognisable award (even single)...In my view, it (this article) only seems to be an outburst of a fan's love. Just for example, each song of Roy was hit, let's make a page for each song (definitely not). TrendSPLEND^✉ 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: All songs of Roy were not hit. Bond Boond and Yaara Re were unnoticed songs.Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga is an instant hit ,verify on YouTube it has 8 Million views ,in such short span of time,it's highly notable ,search about it on Google, and most important each and every phrase has a citation and entire sources are listed in Reference section. And its no way promotional ,as it doesn't need promotion ,its an instant hit ,and wikipages related to songs do not usually gets preference in google searches,because download links,streaming links,and video links often results in searches, it cannot be promoted. But detailed information about the subject can be quickly accessible through the page. So please don't delete it and withdraw your nomination.

@TrendSPLEND: Hi, within double-quotes words / phrases You wrote are views of eminent editors or authors (from sources) - mainly e-papers, mostly under Reception section, and Wikipedia always need sources or citations for all articles. Thanks. 59.97.136.203 (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: Phrases like "soulful rendition", "shedding tears", "soothe the soul", "instant hit", "viral", "historical song", "quantum of love", "Mithoon's genius"... are of the respective authors and people associated with it,Its necessary to describe the subject, and most importantly each and every sentence has a source attached to it. It havent won any award as its a new song ,despite being a new song it becamed popular among masses,and thus its notable, you may not like the song, its your choice. But majority of masses who like Bollywood music ,liked it that's why it has so much coverage and become notable and popular. As time pass it will get more coverage and probably awards too. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – That an article reads promotionally is not typically regarded as a valid reason for deletion because editing and improving the article is usually possible as an alternative to deletion. In this case, most subjective/biased opinions are attributed to the person who made them; perhaps the article could be cleaned up, but I don't think the problem is as bad as the nominator makes it out to be. Instead, the focus should be on determining whether the song has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Such coverage appears to exist, as shown by the sources presented in the article: [37][38][39][40][41]. I'm not 100% sure whether these sources are reliable, as I'm not familiar with Indian media, but absent evidence to the contrary, it does appear this passes the bar for notability. (On the other hand, I do understand Aoba47's suggestion to wait until the film's release to see if there is sustained coverage, so I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Half Girlfriend (film) either.) Mz7 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoptimistix: Its a kind request to you, please reply with you Wikipedia account...as I am not able to get who is in conversation with different IPs. I give you 2 days time, to improve the article....if you succeed, I will remove the nomination. Otherwise, it should be considered merging with Half Girlfriend (and let's see if it win any award).

TrendSPLEND^✉ 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: I'm not Anoptimistix, but I've reorganized and cleaned up the article a bit to try to remove subjective promotional content and attribute all opinions about the song to their respective authors. I think, given the sources in the "Reception" section, that the article should be kept as a standalone article. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 19:15, 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) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taher Shabbir Mithaiwala[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR.Hardlyany WP:RS covering the subject. Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Winged Blades of Godric; also, it is simply WP:TOOSOON TopCipher (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice Dang if it does not appear the person is, in fact, notable, but this stub is insufficient to warrant its current state. Any better solution? Collect (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Came across this page from BLPN and I vote delete given the arguments noted above.

• Delete as per WP:GNG. Also the article itself is practically nonexistent. It is perplexing why the page creator did not spend any time whatsoever actually writing an article. Netherzone (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 26 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) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Effect (film)[edit]

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

Not a notable film, search results only bring up Wikipedia mirrors Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 11:27, 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. While the keep and delete vote counts here are roughly equal, the job of the AfD closer is not to count votes, but to determine consensus. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The primary argument of all of the Keep voters in this AfD is that the subject of the article passes WP:NSPORT or WP:NCYC, which is the subject-specific notability guideline for athletes. And, I believe that the subject of the article does indeed pass WP:NCYC. However, that is a fundamentally flawed argument for keeping the article.

The very first sentence at the top of WP:NSPORT is, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). NSPORT itself explicitly refers to the fact that it is not the ultimate bar to determine whether a subject is deserving of an article. It is simply a means of quickly estimating whether a subject is likely to meet that ultimate bar (GNG), without having to go through the process of finding sources to prove it. However, when an AFD is started on an article, those sources need to be produced in order to prevent the deletion of the article. While Magdalena Zamolska clearly passes NSPORT, no one has been able to even remotely demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG. Therefore, I'm forced to assume that she doesn't pass GNG, and thus, the article must be deleted. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Zamolska[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. While it passes WP:NSPORT, note that NSPORT clearly states that the subject has to meet GNG, meeting NSPORT is just indicative they are more likely to do so, so we should search for sources (WP:BEFORE). Well, I did, and I don't see anything except few stats; the best I see is one-sentence coverage like [42] confirming that she competed in few mid-level events and in one or two placed reasonably high (the source cited notes she won "Międzynarodowe Kryterium Uliczne", an event so obscure it doesn't even have an entry on pl wiki - on that note, the subject also doesn't have an article on pl wiki, another red flag). Not all sportspeople who get themselves on a stat-site or two are notable, and she fails GNG clear as day. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCYC, having competed in a top-ranked UCI event. This seems incredibly WP:POINTY after the nominator started this. The fact that there is no Polish article is completley irrelevant. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know well nd as I stated in the opening, NCYC is just a recommendation and it states that the subject must also meet GNG/BIO, and it clearly does not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it clearly does. I see you've still not addressed your incredibly bad-faith nom in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, subject meets WP:SPORTSPERSON (...has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won...) per WP:GNG.
Also, policy statement per WP:NSPORT - The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. I understand nominator's perspective; however this course would better benefit if the guiding laws (legislature) are challenged, as this seems to be an existing debate, instead of the rightful execution. TopCipher (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean. We have been lax enforcing NBIO/GNG on sportspeople. I think it is time to change our lax policy, as the ongoing discussion you mention shows there is clearly no consensus for the lax treatment they have been getting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no-brainer, per the above two editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, as the nominator, who appears to have some level of Wikipedia experience, suggests ... she fails GNG clear as day ... then perhaps we need to clarify policy, or educate our experienced editors, since this is clearly not a GNG fail "clear as day". There must be some confusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - WP:NOTAVOTE. Just saying. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy decision, sort out NSPORTS beforehand XyZAn (talk)
Keep Meets WP:NCYC and WP:SPORTSPERSON guidelines. Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be snowing here. 07:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Snow of invalid votes is irrelevant. This is not a vote. Vote keeps based on ignoring GNG dont' count for much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Piotrus: I agree with you. Also, NSPORT is not supposed to be a handcuff. It says:
the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.
I searched Google with
Magdalena Zamolska cyclist -"she represented her nation at the"
to remove mirrors, and I got pretty much the same info that is in the article right now. There were a lot of passing mentions, unremarkable coverage, and self-published sources. What's worse, the subject is a living person, so the V and RS standards are much stricter. Fails GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: First off, well said - I agree that WP:NSPORT is not something that binds an AFD discussion (a major reason why I've shared a reference from WP:SPORTSPERSON as above). However, while having quoted the segment of policy which when read in full, states -
1."...failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted..."
2."...the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept..."
I suppose those nullify each other out.
Also, since your concerns (which reflects in your vote) are more towards the verifiability and sourcing of the subject - I'm assuming that you're sold on the subject passing the notability (in theory - if not from within the current state of the article). Do please correct me if this is wrong but if not, then I believe if we are to consider the facts that, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article or article content does not determine notability, I think this should suffice for keeping the subject alive as an article here, rather than having it deleted. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Guye's argument is all about lack of Notability: Notability guidelines only exist so we can write a full NPOV/BLP/V/NOR biography - an article of only several sentences "does not qualify for a separate page". Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Topcipher: I wasn't advocating deletion based on article content. I said the information I found didn't give info that wasn't already in the article. I did do research. I even displayed my search query above! But when I searched, I found no more content that was already there. This is important especially because of Hmlarson's !vote when they say

Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD.

But you can't do that if there isn't any more information.--Mr. Guye (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: I see, noted and my apologies in case my interpretation was not upto the mark. Given these insights (i.e. your comment), please advise if the following summarizes the issues in play -
1. Notability - pass
2. Verifiability - pass
3. Reliable sources - pass
4. Expansion - unlikely (per current scenario) - tip: by using/modifying search term as "Magda Zamolska", we're further able to see more references.
If the above is believed to be true (as I do not see you questioning anything but point 4), firstly, I'd like to point out that every snowflake is unique :) and secondly, here are some more sources that I was able to gather; some may be similar, but some could be of use too as they have content and not just stats (I wasn't to gather deeper insights as I'm not so proficient with the language) -
1. kobieta.wp.pl 2. portal.bikeworld.pl 3. dewielersite.net 4. sport.se.pl 5. domtel-sport.pl 6. wroclaw.wyborcza.pl
Undoubtedly, these are mere mentions and stats, non-English (above it all) but the point I'm trying to make is that it would still suffice to use them either for expansion or for having them as additonal claim of significance towards the alreaedy existing notability. Hope this helps. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Topcipher:

The Polish Wikipedia corresponding article pl:Magdalena Zamolska and your suggestion pl:Magda Zamolska fail to exist. That would be strange for a notable athlete from the country that provides majority of its viewers. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Oh, please don't worry about that - it has already been addressed by Lugnuts in their very first remark via WP:OTHERLANGS. Also, the alternate search term that I was referring to was for Google searches (not so much on Wikipedia).
On a personal note, I was once told that different Wiki would have different standards - which merit different criterions; all I can say is that if the article that has been created here and has been proved to meet said guidelines, we could only deem ourselves lucky to have such editors among us - instead over at the pl site :) TopCipher (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NCYC and that's enough. This does seem to be a WP:POINT-y nomination to drum up support for your village pump proposal. But the village pump is the right place to discuss this, not here. Smartyllama (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BLP and V and RS per Guye. Also, fails WP:ONEEVENT since all the N claim is one event, and not even a "psedobiography" can be written, here, let alone an WP:NPOV biography. In addition, fails all other criteria like WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:NCYC because those merely suggest there could be a "likelyhood" of the proper substantial coverage of this woman's biography but no such GNG RS coverage exists (thus, the likleyhood or "presumption" has failed and is now nothing but unsupported WP:OR) and the WP:BURDEN is on the keep voters to demonstrate the substantial coverage of her biography does exist, especially where the event occurred several years ago, so such coverage should already exist. Also, delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING including not promotion, not directory, and not statistics. Some of the person's statistics info might go to an appropriate list article, per ONEEVENT and LIST, or to a list-in-an-article on notable cycling events.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC) -- (There have been questions below, about what I meant in the first sentence, "Fails GNG and BLP and V and RS . . ..", I was referring to Mr. Guye's rationale, which is backed up by WP:WHYN, that an article of only a few sentences does not qualify for a separate page, and notability guidelines only exist so we can write a full biographical article. To further expand, the routine coverage produced by the research, here, does not meet the GNG requirement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

"Fails GNG and BLP and V and RS" - wrong on all four counts there. Meets the notability criteria for cyclists, the BLP is verified with reliable sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. As Guye showed, for this biography, there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is both "directly" about her whole life and that is "detailed" about her whole life per GNG (and NPOV). Per WP:WHYN, notability guides exist only so we can write a whole article about the subject, here, a life - a biography, not "half a paragraph." So, here, we cannot keep.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear, at least on three counts why it fails BLP, V and RS? Are you suggesting it's a violation of the WP:BLP policy? Could you be clear how? I can see WP:V sources which look WP:RS to me. Could you explain why those sources currently used are not verifiable and not reliable? GNG, well that's another discussion but let's get the easy three sorted out. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refer back to Guye's post which is where they were discussed more in depth, as that is what I was referring to, explicitly, so as not to repeat, but perhaps it will also help you to re-read WP:WHYN to get my points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm cool with my understanding of these policies, and this article doesn't fail them. Thanks for the pointers though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that the article does not provide any info about "Ms. Zamolska the Human". The Banner talk 23:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual does not have notability based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Listings that cover only participation in events or specialized almanacs that include all members of an activity are not significant coverage and this person does not meet the GNG. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elite competitor that clearly merits an article. Competing in multiple World Championships should make this a no-brainer. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Routine coverage of World Championships does not make this subject merit an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the competitors in a world championship don't receive the necessary coverage to be considered notable, then they aren't notable. Until very recently, the media attention for women's cycling was in most countries extremely minimal (it has improved a lot, but is still way below the coverage the men receive). Competing in the world championships in many other sports isn't enough to be notable (e.g. inline skating and roller skating, or the Basque Pelota World Championships, or many many others), and there is no reason to make an exception for women's cycling. If she has received significant personal attention (not jus troutine coverage and sports database listings), she is notable. Until such coverage surfaces though, she should be considered to be not notable and her article deleted. Fram (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments made by others, above. And let's try to stay calm, folks. Can I please modestly refer people to WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY and WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article is sourced to procyclingstats.com and Cycling Archives (and there is an external link to ProCyclingStats, although that's not used as a ref). Does anybody have a handle or, or even a vibe about, how reliable these sources are? If they are not I would tend to lean toward deleting the article as not sufficiently sourced. If these are good sources I would tend to lean toward keeping the article, since it contains useful data such as a very large encyclopedia (which we are) would have, is not hurting anyone, and already exists. Herostratus (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus - these are both some of the foremost and most reliable sources for cycling articles (road and time trial), lugnuts can confirm XyZAn (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Take Procyclingstats.com' -- how many employees do they have? What is their fact-checking operation like? What's their self-correct process for errors? It says there that "All information and specifications shown on this website are based upon the latest available information provided by race organizations, teams and riders". Well heck, "provided by... riders", really? What's to stop a rider from reporting a better time than they actually had -- it would be in their interest to do so, I would think.

Procyclingstats.com is a commercial enterprise. An important goal for them is to make money, or at least stay in business. To the end they must have pressure to keep costs down, including fact-checking staff. On the other hand, they probably realize that a slipshod approach to fact-checking will lose them eyeballs in the long run. So these goals are in tension -- how do they handle that tension? Beyond that, they may well be people of competence and integrity who are doing this mainly or at least partly out of enthusiasm for cycling -- but I don't know that. Do you?

An official body would probably have a stronger motive to get their facts right, since their remit would more to advance cycling generally than to run a website which is itself profitable. For instance, Major League Baseball provides baseball statistics, free of charge and presumably well vetted, as doing so advances their larger goals. Cycling doesn't seem to have anything like that, and this makes me rather nervous. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are both the standard reliable sources for cyclists. They've been used by the project for as long as I can remember. If you want to question their reliablity then do so here. There's never been an issue (that I'm aware of) from using one or the other as a WP:RS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no "official" source for pro cycling - for instance, like MLB.Com or the Hall of Fame etc for professional baseball - we have to make do with the sources we've got. So far as I know Cycling Archives and procyclingstats are generally accepted as reliable sources by the cycling world. As an off-topic aside...anyone know how many employees & fact-checkers that MLB.Com/Baseball Hall of Fame/etc have? I'm not personally aware of any particular discussion on-Wiki as to how staffing-levels do or do not affect reliability of a source. Agree that if editors have doubts about the two sources mentioned above then a discussion should be open at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it is with a sample GA article, such as 2016 Paris–Roubaix. This uses ProCyclingStats to source many of the info within the article. I'm sure if anyone was concerned about PCS/CA, they could look through all the cycling FA/GA articles to see how often they're used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a genuine question, but at an AFD, it's clutching at straws to suddenly start questioning the reliability of sources. That's not what AFD is about. Nor is the number of staff employed by an organisation.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all down to how much Gift Aid they pledge from the donations of dress-down Friday that will pass the RS grade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess, per the above conversation. I don't have confidence that the article is sourced to sufficiently reliable sources. "They've been used by the project for as long as I can remember" and so forth tell tell us nothing useful. "we have to make do with the sources we've got" does not inspire confidence, and of course staffing levels affect reliablity -- that is why the New Yorker with its fact-checking department is a reliable source and one-man blog isn't. For all I know Procyclingstats.com etc. is a one-man website, or at any rate a tiny-staff website.

Procyclingstats.com for instance says ""All information... based upon... information provided by... riders" which, if taken at face value, does not indicate sufficient rigor. Baseball statistics are not based on the scorer asking "Hey Hank, how many hits did you get today". It has been vouchsafed over at the Pump that this class of articles in general is problematic precisely for the reason that the refs aren't reliable. We can't assume that some obscure commercial website is reliable, rather the burden is on persons wanting to use the website. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the small matter that it is not a "obscure commercial website". Again, WP:RSN is where you should raise your concerns about this. The site is used multiple times for GA and FA content on here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other sources available confirming competing in World, World Junior, and national championships, e.g. [43], [44], [45]. There may well be other coverage but it is likely to be in Polish. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I understand feeling squeamish about possibly using a one-man blog as a source but having to "make do with the sources we've got" is entirely appropriate. If there is no Big Book of Cycling Stats or Guinness Book of Cycling Stats or a Best-Selling Author's Cycling History Tome or whatever, then, yes, as editors we cannot conjure up something that does not exist, so yes, we have to make do with what we've got. Since you've mentioned The New Yorker 's fabled fact-checking department above, how many does The Washington Post or ESPN or Sports Illustrated or The Times of London or whatever have? Not that I participate in huge numbers of AfD discussions but I've personally never seen "the-number-of-people-employed-as-factcheckers" cited in a discussion as a reason to disregard a source before. If, in your opinion, both Procyclingstats.com & Cyclingarchives.com are now considered to be not reliable because their editorial status is not as legendary as The New Yorker then the appropriate report should be made at the RS Noticeboard and perhaps those sources should be salted like The Daily Mail was. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I went and looked it up. The New Yorker had eight people in its fact-checking department prior to Tina Brown. At least, according to the Columbia Journalism Review they did. The magazine now employs sixteen fact-checkers but if they're "the gold standard" is WP supposed to discard every source that doesn't come up to that standard? I dunno... Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the reliability of stat sources is a major issue here. The question is - are they enough to make the subject pass WP:GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Passes WP:NCYC, she competed at UCI World Championship in 2006 (time trial), and 2008 (road race). She's also Polish champion in two-women time trial (2009) and took the silver in ITT (2006, 2007), bronze in individual road race in 2004, and bronze in ITT (2005). The source is: Bogdan Tuszyński, Henryk Kurzyński Leksykon 1466 najlepszych zawodniczek I zawodników w kolarstwie polskim 1919-2015, ed. Warsaw 2016, p. 464. I'm going to write article in Polish wiki, anyway, as the podium of the national championship is enough there.--Pbk (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This AfD is in bad faith from an editor trying to make a point about the long standing notability consensuses of WP:NCYCLING and WP:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, Piotrus will be running off to ANI an saying you're making personal attacks against him with a comment like that. Infact I wonder if User:Fram considers that to be "disruptive" per this comment that fails to assume good faith? No rush, I know you've been very busy with this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 28 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 and nominated by article creator (edits by other users have all been trivial). See WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rupashi Bangla Express[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as it is not much useful article. Som999 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Som999. As you are nominating your own article for deletion you may be able to contest speedy deletion for author requests deletion. {{Db-g7}}. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 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 redirect to Torey Krug. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Krug[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the Torey Krug article. Ravenswing 11:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ravenswing makes sense given he is mentioned in the Torey Krug article. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No independent notability established. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:49, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Zaniboni[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dislike quick deletes, but this perhaps should have been one. I'm sure it was well intentioned but... Bill McKenna (talk) 00:33, 23 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 Annie Malone. Sandstein 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poro College[edit]

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

This article needs more references to establish the notability of Poro College. The two links under "References" lead to a single source, which by itself is not sufficient to establish notability under the guideline "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The founder of Poro College, Annie Malone, is certainly notable, and simple searches turn up many references to her cosmetology school and business empire as a landmark institution, especially within the African-American community. [46][47][48][49] So deletion is not appropriate. The current article, however, contains little content beyond Malone's story, and the sources I've found suggest that Poro's story seems to be contained within hers (the government apparently seized most of Poro's assets for back taxes in 1951; Malone died, in much reduced circumstances, in 1957). So I'm not sure if there is enough separate content to warrant a separate article for Poro, rather than a redirect to Malone's article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the founder seems appropriate here. Not notable in the article directly due to the present lack of sources, but could be WP:SPLIT from the founder should more sources be found. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 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. Sandstein 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability criteria for musicians. - TheMagnificentist 05:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria 5, "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". - MicroPowerpoint —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micro, but he hasn't released two or more albums on Monstercat or any other labels. The ones listed in the discography section are extended plays which are shorter recordings than an album. - TheMagnificentist 06:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificentist, Fair enough. I see 'My Prayers Have Become Ghosts' as an album, not an EP because of the length (which is over 25 minutes) and that it has 7 songs, which usually determines it as an album, not an EP. Then there is The Ancient & Arcane which is labeled as an album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroPowerpoint (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:05, 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 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Diaz, Jordan (2015-08-10). "Variens debut album The Ancient Arcane is a cinematic masterpiece". Dancing Astronaut. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  Amidst the monotony of endless “superstar” DJ press releases it’s rare to find the raw authenticity of musicianship, but when those select few unrivaled talents pop up like diamonds in the rough, true music fans immediately take notice. Varien is one of those artists. The 25-year-old composer, producer and musician, real name Nick Pittsinger, transcends electronic music with not only his cornucopia of musical styles but his TV and film production and scoring credits on Furious 7, 300: Rise of an Empire, The Purge: Anarchy, The Real World and The Walking Dead. After the Tampa native’s collaborations with mega-talents like Skrillex, Two Steps from Hell and Celldweller, he’s now unveiling his experimental 8-track album debut The Ancient & Arcane via Monstercat, primed to offer listeners an existential experience. “The Ancient & Arcane is really a free flowing amalgamation of influences and inspirations for me that I’ve held true for a long time,” states Pittsinger. “A lot of people will think this is a ‘reinvention of Varien’ when in reality, the genre-less nature of this album in whole is really what I’m all about.” Incorporating elements of Latin jazz, electro swing and Japanese future bass, among others, Varien emblazons his sonic finesse for his premiere full-length body of work.
2. Endykiewicz, Paige (2015-08-06). "THE ANCIENT & ARCANE LP BY VARIEN FINALLY EMERGES [MONSTERCAT]". Your EDM. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  After months of anticipation, the moment of truth and unveiling has come for Varien’s debut album, The Ancient & Arcane. The eight track LP features a wide array of sounds and genres that we could only expect Varien to create, including electroswing, Japan-influenced future bass, and much more. This extremely experimental album is an empowering and enchanting experience in its transformation of sonic soundscapes. The Ancient & Arcane is not only an audio-visual experience, such as the recently released ‘Supercell’ music video, but this is a true out of this world endeavor and feeling for all who listen.
3. Laderman, David; Westrup, Laurel (2014). Sampling Media. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 0199949336. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The book notes:
  One year earlier, Nick Pittsinger, an American teenager armed with free digital audio editing software an an Internet connection, produced an extremely time-stretched version of pop musician Justin Bieber's hit "U Smile." Pittsinger uploaded the version to Soundcloud, a popular social network and music-sharing platform. His remix was redistributed through news aggregation websites and spawned similar sampled mixes of extreme durational subversion that appropriated other pop idols like Rebecca Black and Beyoncé. In 2010, this dislocated world-wide microscene, composed of often anonymous users including artists as diverse as Lopatin and Pittsinger, assumed an interesting position within the discourse of Internet commentary; the formulaic and marketable products of entertainment industries stretched into works of amateur labor and free digital culture. Pittsinger explained flatly: "When you slow down a video by 800 or 1,000 percent, every detail is seen—you see exactly how stuff breaks or people sneeze." ...
4. Matos, Michaelangelo (2010-09-30). "How Justin Bieber gave SoundCloud a boost". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  A month ago, two big pop-music events occurred online. One was Cee-Lo Green's Fuck You, an instant internet smash that vaulted to more than 2m plays via a quickie, follow-the-bouncing-lyrics YouTube clip (since supplanted by a live-action video). The other belonged to 20-year-old Nick Pittsinger, working under the name Shamantis, who slowed down Justin Bieber's U Smile till it sounded like a whale dirge and/or something from the 4AD label, then posted it to SoundCloud; it too has been played more than 2m times. Both are novelties that actually stand up, but the big difference is that most of the people who checked out the YouTube phenomenon knew about that site already. The slowed-down Bieber track, though, was likely the first encounter with SoundCloud for many of Pittsinger's listeners.
5. Yenigun, Sami (2010-08-18). "How It Works: The Art Of Time-Stretching Bieber". NPR. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  Yesterday, a DJ named Nick Pittsinger (a.k.a. Shamantis) posted a track titled, "U Smile 800 Percent Slower" which is a manipulated version of the Justin Bieber song "U Smile," slowed down from its original 3:17 running time so that it lasts for over 35 minutes. When I heard it, I immediately began playing with the audio to see how he'd made the new version. I ran the recording through Ableton, an audio processing software, sped it up to the original tempo, and found that though it is surely Beiber's song, the audio had been processed before it had been stretched.
  Pittsinger says he used a program called PaulStretch to slow the track down.
  ...
6. Richards, Chris (2011-12-30). "A 44-minute disc that takes 4 months to play? It's time stretching". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  The most famous example went viral in 2010, when a Florida DJ, Nick Pittsinger, used a new software program called PaulStretch to transform Justin Bieber’s bubble-gum hit “U Smile” into a dreamy, unrecognizable, 30-plus-minute whooooooosh — the kind of music you might hear when you’re flopped out on a massage table.
7. Aaron, Charles (2010-09-09). "SPIN's 20 Best Songs of Summer". Spin. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  J Biebz, U Smile 800% Slower
  When Tampa, Floridas Shamantis, a.k.a. Nick Pittsinger, used the audio application PaulStretch to decelerate Justin Biebers peppy trifle U Smile into a 30-plus-minute ocean of theosophy, he couldnt have known that he was revealing why pop music conceals the mysteries that unlock the universe and why we need to immediately put the brakes on the entire enterprise-literally-before we diddle ourselves into oblivion.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Varien to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:10, 27 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Pulvirenti[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable with significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she's most notable for presenting something several years ago, but i can't find much else. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely routine coverage that doesn't meet notability requirements for bios. As written, the article reads much like WP:NOTPROMO with a lot of padding. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:12, 26 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. Sandstein 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook's Bookcase[edit]

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

Lacks substantial support. References are no more than a single line mention and some do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As the nom says this has very poor sourcing (including a two sentence mention in a major publication which seems to have been duplicated verbatim, which I think might be a copyright violation). There's some more significant coverage on questionable sites, e.g. personal blogs and regional interest websites so I'm not dismissing it out of hand but this wiki-article author is clearly reaching to demonstrate notability. I'm suggesting a weak keep more for the effort that's been put in to TRY to cite this subject than the effectiveness of that effort. Notability calls for 2 non-trivial secondary sources. This appears to have 0.5 trivial secondary, 0.75 non-trivial minor secondary and about 3 x 0.25 trivial questionable sources. That math theoretically adds up to a solid 2 but obviously it's shaky math. If this article is deleted that will be understandable, but I suggest the article author be encouraged to add at least one better citation before that point. -Markeer 19:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional interest website and personal blogs fail the criteria for references to establish notability. A reference is either good .... or its not. There's no such thing as a fraction of a good reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to find a few better sources and to reword any areas that may have breached copyrights (as that was unintentional). -Bumsnuggler 4 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The references provided are regional interest and not national. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam sourcing does not quantify Independence of sources, and regional-interest-only is another issue. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:14, 27 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 16:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first meeting of two major programs is not in itself significant enough to warrant its own article. The lead-up to the game received about as much coverage as would be expected from two major programs meeting for the first time. Furthermore, the info could easily fit into the respective teams' 2005 season articles. The purpose of this fork was stated by the author to be a result of a GA review which recommended it be created, which is debatable. Also, the game has not received lasting coverage in subsequent years. Lizard (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not seem to cover games, so that takes us to Wikipedia:Notability (events) (I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes). Now, there is no denying that such games, as trivial as they may seem for most people, do generate a lot of coverage, because sport is a major hobby for the masses. We are therefore faced with an event that does, routinely, generate a lot of coverage - at the same time WP:EVENT states that "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Whether sport games fall under such routine issue is a BIG topic. This one does have a claim of being notable. Unlike in the other AfD in the series (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Texas vs. Oklahoma football game), I don't see anything here to suggest this game was non-routine, the claim of one of the best games of the season still seems relatively routine, given that we are dealing with a high-volume, low-interest, collecte sport level field, and as such, in lieu of any policy guidelines that would suggest alternative reasons to keep this, I lean towards deletion, seeing this as a non-notable event. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a strong supporter of the long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance. Here, however, there are three aspects to this game that, in combination, justify an exception. First, this was the first meeting between Texas and Ohio State, two of the giants of the sport, both ranking in the top five programs in wins with 12 national championships between them. Second, the game itself was noteworthy separate and apart from the "historic first" meeting element. It matched two top five teams, Texas going on to win the 2005 national championship and Ohio State ranked No. 4 after winning the Big Ten championship and Fiesta Bowl. Does anyone actually believe that this game is less notable than, say, the 1983 Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl, the 2014 Quick Lane Bowl, or the 2012 Music City Bowl? Of course not. We presume every bowl game is notable, but most of those games are far less notable than this one. Third, there is some evidence of lasting coverage, e.g., six pages (20-25) from this book dedicated to this particular game. Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the well–reasoned arguments presented by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the first RfD and one comment was "Delete. A football game". Someone replied that it wasn't a helpful comment but I disagree. It's a football game; not a title/bowl/championship/etc. It's just one game.
Keep I stand among those who want to include this article. Clearly had far more coverage than any basic "routine" game and stands on its own notability. Just because it was a football game does not discout the amount of coverage it received in the media. Like it or not, lots of people think this is notable. Significant widespread third party coverage supports that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep agree with CBL62. L3X1 (distant write) 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the game received six pages of coverage in a book strongly establishes it is notable. I agree with Cbl62's arguments. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The game is not notable to have an article. Merge if necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:36, 27 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. Sean Harris[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability of this author. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good reads is a user generated source and thus not a reliable one, other than that we have nothing. Plus the article is overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 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 no consensus. Insufficient discussion for consensus. Sandstein 11:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Liberal Democrats[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:Aloneinthewild who wrote on talk "Previously prod'd. Although this is a poorly written article, there are enough sources just going a google search, its previous forms "Oxford University Liberal Club", Russell Club, and the Palmerston Club are possibly also notable". Sadly, WP:GOOGLEHITS is one of classic arguments to avoid in AfDs; mentions in passing =/= notability. In the following month the article has been expanded a bit by User:AdamPeterHiggins and several IPs but I am afraid that it still fails to convey its significance - sources are primarily the club website; red flags such as links to Facebook and Twitter as sources don't help, either... Unless someone can point to a reliable source that discusses the club's significance in detail, or the subject in depth, this is something that belongs on Oxford University wikia (if it existed, which it sadly doesn't...), not in Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would recommend KEEP for two reasons:

1. There is an independent history of the organisation, as listed at https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Kissing_Your_Sister.html?id=nr8KtwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

2. Comparable political clubs and societies of Oxford University are also the topic of Wikipedia articles, and meet the notability guidelines, namely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Conservative_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Labour_Club

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union

I accept the point that the article at present is rather poorly-written, and poorly-referenced. However, the above would seem to be grounds for beefing up the article with rewrites rather than deletion.Debonairchap (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The independent history seems to be self-published; I cannot find ISBN nor a wordlcat entry. As such, I am afraid it is difficult to consider it a reliable source. How do you know it is independent, and not a brochure published by the club in question? And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Knight[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio. I source plus an interview are not enough to pass gng and there is nothing that suggests pornbio is in play. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps your hostility to pornography has caused you forget to what WP:PORNBIO actually says. "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Knight was the host of Playboy TV's top-rated show, appeared in a comedy film, multiple rap videos, and album covers, and was featured in an ad campaign for Pony athletic gear. She also hosted and co-produced the Hip Hop Honeys series of films. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured != appeared in. Its a more significant test and in any case a technical sng pass does not mean the article stays if it is clearly failing the gng. So how does this pass gng old boy? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete featured is not the same as appearing in. Anyway it is high time we start actually holding more articles to GNG which this one does not at all meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing falls far below BLP standards. No real claim to meeting PORNBIO requirements. Most of the article's claims are sourced to the "Panache Report", and appear to be exaggerated or embellished; the site is probably self-published, and clearly is no more than questionable under RS. As JPL accurately notes, mere appearances do not automatically meet the "featured" threshold, and several of the cited appearances are in any event not mainstream. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- un unremarkable adult actor; mainstream appearances do not rise to the level of what's expected of BLPs.K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 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. Redirect may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AG-490[edit]

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

Unremarkable "pill". No claims to notability Nördic Nightfury 10:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Janus kinase, with no issue with re-creating. Right now, it is little more than a definition, and as such should be deleted as per WP:NOTDIC. However, searches turned up quite a few in-depth sourcing on this inhibitor. The first page of a Google Books search alone shows its notability. If I had a lick of interest in this subject, or felt I was competent in writing about it, I would expand the article myself. If someone does expand it, with sourcing, please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per above, another stub from a creator who rarely finishes pages, point it somewhere until such time as a real article is made. JamesG5 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Redirect.~~ Not enough content to warrant an article.~~, but worth mentioning as a single sentence at Janus kinase.~~ Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, the subject doesn't even have appropriate sources to include a single sentence, so I'm changing to delete. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tyrosine-kinase inhibitor - the drug's full name is Tyrphostin B42, and Tyrphostin already redirects to that article. Agricolae (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, just a redirect, no content merged. Agricolae (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is not good enough sourcing to make this even DUE at the other article. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 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) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Mitchell[edit]

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

Non-notable Youtuber. The sources provided immediately fail the subject under WP:ANYBIO (they're only tablods and WP:PRIMARY): A further WP:BEFORE study indicates WP:ENT is blown too: only tabloids [50], [51], [52], [53], zines [54], blogs [55], andpress releases [56]. No WP:DEPTH of coverage; fails WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the subject meets the criteria of having "significant" coverage in independent reliable sources. Deli nk (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YAY - Yet Another Youtuber. Spam. --Rhombus (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VESSBROZ[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Claimed award from Indiewise USA is not supported by source, neither is the alleged appreciation from a Malaysian Minister of state. Sources are just interviews and publicity. Nothing indicating any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This was supposed to be a weak keep, as I did find quite a few sources about them, including the interviews mentioned by the nominator. However, upon closer inspection, those interviews appear to be from unreliable sites (it doesn't help that some of the said sites have poor English grammar). As far as I know, interviews are considered significant coverage if they come from a reliable source, but given the quality of sources I was able to find, there doesn't seem to be enough to establish notability. I'm willing to consider my !vote if information about possible chart positions in Malaysia are found (if they have not charted, consider my !vote to be a simple "Delete" instead of a "Weak delete" !vote). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:21, 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) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdbMails[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable computer program: has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources. Hits online are mainly false positives, forum posts, or tech support websites, but not actual coverage about the software. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:29, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paul Oman-Reagan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

CSD tagged by a new user without a valid criteria IMO. I originally converted to a PROD to find out it had been sent to AfD in 2005 with a no consensus outcome. The claim to significance here is that the Library Journal did a brief blurb on him as an up and coming member of the field in 2012 for some work he did with Occupy Wall Street. The other source appears to be a local art newsletter from Portland. I can't find sources out there beyond those already in the article that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. In my view, we don't have enough to pass WP:GNG here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Non-notable artist, with perhaps some regional coverage, but could not find evidence of that. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saga of the Aryans[edit]

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

The work is hardly encylopedia worthy, article appears to a be a vanity piece Failosopher (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All content after the lead paragraph appears to be copied from the Saga of Aryans website. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything to demonstrate notability in any reliable source. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 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} 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep goodreads says it was very popular in India, enough that it has been translated and released in English. It seems unique for a historical fiction setting, being about Zarathurstra and Zoroastrianism - Philippa Gregory may be a guilty pleasure, but I don't think we should necessarily have to delete lesser known works if there are other reasons for notability like popularity in another country, where we may not have access to the primarily foreign language sources. It's pretty notable for a foreign novel to be popular enough to be translated into English. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds interesting, and may be a good read, but it's not in any way a notable book. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 27 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Bros. Records[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Record label that doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG's inclusion standards. Google returns no independent sourcing on either English-language or Mexico specific search. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotionalism on a recording studio with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 23 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) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbanks Summer Arts Festival[edit]

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

The main sources I can find are local news announcements for the festival in routine reporting. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are thousands of summer festivals all over the US and the world. Most of them are not particularly notable and this one does not seem to be an exception to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local music festival that doesn't get past our inclusion criteria. The sources are only local and trivial in nature. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SkyFallen Entertainment[edit]

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

This has been around for years and yet has no significant sources supporting it. None of the claims in the text are referenced and there is no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has no sources and no real indication of importance.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rdist[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. I proded it as an apparently non-notable computer command. It was deproded, and I intended to do a bit more digging later, but it was further PRODed by PamD for being a dictionary definition style entry. I think both concerns are valid, so bring it to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What. Individual Linux commands get articles now? And then all there is to say is a dictionary definition? Delete on both counts.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:07, 24 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. Sandstein 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Estonia[edit]

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

This article seems to be a ~~WP:NPOV~~ WP:CFORK of Estonia. There does not appear to be any valid reason for it to stay as a standalone topic. NoGhost (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, I meant to imply that the article is WP:POINTy, not neutral. --NoGhost (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Gut or Merge. The topic of Estonia being defined (or not) as a Nordic country is interesting, and possibly notable, through I am not sure of that. The article however is 90% off topic. We could gut it to few sentences referenced to [57] and [58], or just WP:TNT this. PS. Those 1-2 sentences could also be merged to Nordic_countries#Estonian_integration and we could redirect this term there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename and edit. I believe that the question of whether or not Estonia is considered a Nordic nation is a notable one with enough evidence in both directions to create a reasonable, unbiased article discussing both arguments in an encyclopedic matter, well in line with WP:GNG. However, in its current state, the article is poorly-named and not well-written and it is easy to see why it appears to be in line with deletion policy. PenaltyCard (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as I allready noted on the talk page the topic is clearly notable - attempts to rebrand Estonia as a Nordic country have been going on for like twenty years, there are prominent Estonian politicians backing it, seems there are plenty of supporters of the idea among ordinary Estonians as well and this movement has at least some recognition outside the country. Content quality and NPOV problems alone usually are not enough reason to delete an article. Exploring this in other articles would be problematic, because it isn't really central issue to any other topic, but there are a lot of things to cover, so there is high chance of going off topic and giving too much attention to what is a minor side issue in scope of other articles. I agree the comment above that the article name could be different, in addition I think it would help if lead section would explain what the topic is more clearly ~~Xil (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve The article reflects the phenomenon and movement of the Estonian government towards being defined as a nordic country. During the new independence period, this phenomenon has been happening for nearly two decades, at least since 1999. In the previous independence period, it was pursued since 1918. This is a specific phenomenon that is happening in the estonian government across different party lines, is well referenced and deserves a separate mention on Wikipedia. Also, this article has already previously been approved by a Wikipedia admin. For example, the current Estonian president describes Estonia to be in the "Nordic Benelux" region, the previous president has written several articles on why Estonia should be considered a nordic country. The prime minister of Estonia defines the country as a nordic, etc. It doesnt matter whether someone thinks estonia is nordic or not. This article reflects the phenomenon of the discussions happening. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Edit: GUTTED I deleted a bunch of text which another editor had put in and had nothing to do with the article. That text probably also caused the nomination for deletion. That text is currently gone. I have no issue with the rewording of the page title. But the content and topic itself is both notable and relevant. For example the google search for "eesti põhjamaa" returns 186,000 results. One of the issues is the fact that this is mainly an intra-estonian discussion and has not reached the international media, so there isn't that much content in english about the topic. There is 20 years worth of content in estonian though. It is a large-scale, specific topic which does not fit into the "Estonia" article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So when google search "australia nordic countries" returns me over 22 million hits, should I conclude that Nordic Australia is even more notable and relevant topic? And about being "large-scale" topic and "20 years worth of content in estonian" compared to English. You have wrote about this Nordic Estonia idea a lot in different articles and talk pages, but for some reason not presented very many reliable sources to support it, not in English nor in Estonian. So how can we believe all those so far not mentioned Estonian reliable sources really exist? Minnekon (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the results for "eesti põhjamaa" in google, they're all about the nordic identity, at least the ones on the first three pages. I just did your "nordic australia" search and the results are completely different. They're not comparable. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There are also many misinterpretations by the creator of the article and most of that stuff would be better represented in Estonia's article. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but (re)define as article about Nordic identity of Estonia and remove off-topic content or merge relevant parts. Main problem of this article has been missing clear definition of topic and therefore piling up whatever material that makes any kind of connection between Estonia and Nordic states (or even only one Nordic state). This article has future only if we agree what exactly should it cover and that choice is based on reliable sources (meaning no original research and deciding on our own for example that certain sort of integration takes place and choosing events and stats to prove it). Out of all those different topics the question of Estonia as a Nordic state seems most promising as subject of the article - it is somewhat discussed even in few academic papers. On the other hand, that article would still remain rather short and maybe redundant, if all its content could be easily presented in articles Estonia and Nordic states. Minnekon (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: concurrent discussion at Talk:Nordic Estonia seems to favour keeping article and renaming it Nordic Identity in Estonia. --NoGhost (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been renamed to Nordic Identity in Estonia as per talk page consensus SørenKierkegaard (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue of whether or not Estonia is a Nordic nation is not entirely clear. So an article clarifying the issues in an unbiased way would be very helpful. The current article should be improved, rather than deleted. User Ial pointed out that "attempts to rebrand Estonia as a Nordic country have been going on for like twenty years, there are prominent Estonian politicians backing it, seems there are plenty of supporters of the idea among ordinary Estonians as well and this movement has at least some recognition outside the country." This would be an excellent area to cover. Dean Esmay (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion which is at a consensus, i think. --do ncr am 08:14, 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. No prejudice towards future notability. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Haug[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable jazz-dance teacher with one single source that does not support the claims made in the article. Those come "(from official biography)", per the article creator, who mentioned that that: "This is original material, it needs no references". Mduvekot (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it should be deleted. Does not seem to be notable. The only source just says that she was part of 4 shows. --Rogerx2 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't been active in a long while but Gbooks does show hits like this. She seemed to be an active choreographer in her time, especially of "floor shows" in NYC. But also Broadway. Someone w/ Highbeam may be able to find more in-depth stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources in the article. The source identified by Shawn in Montreal does not seem to lead to an actual mention, and even if it did it would not be enough to pass GNG on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That source says "Palmer taught Betsy Haugh technique, and Mestey, spending his summers in New York took classes with Haug herself. Haug's insistence on the coordination of different movements on different parts of the body occurring at the same time became helpful [..]" and then I can't see any more. That may very well be a sign of meeting some of our notability criteria, like "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.". If more sources like this emerge, and can be used to build an article based on (here we go again) independent, reliable sources, I'll withdraw the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:14, 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 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Oettinger[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON for now. Best article I found for GNG is this decent draft profile from THN. Everything else is in the realm of WP:ROUTINE and passing mentions, usually less than a paragraph. Un-delete when and if he gets drafted in the first round. Yosemiter (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the THN article I also found this from nhl.com and this from the Boston Globe. There is also this from USHL, although that may not qualify as "independent." But even without that, I think he meets the GNG bar. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can access the Detroit Free Press from January 30, 2016 there may be another article on him on page B7. I can see a promising looking snippet on newspapers.com, but the full article is behind a paywall. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the subject of significant coverage, including [59] [60] [61] - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided by Hirolovesswords are enough to get him past GNG even if he doesn't meet NHOCKEY. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Hirolovesswords establish that Jake Oettinger passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It passes WP:GNG due to the sources found by Hirolovesswords --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:01, 27 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not This Time[edit]

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

Horse retired after injury before winning anything of much significance. GIII win is generally insufficient to grant notability per WP:NHORSERACING. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single GIII win doesn't give notability although he was only a small margin from becoming a GI winner. Could become a successful sire in the years to come, in which case an article would be justified, but for now it's just a delete for me.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe this is a WP:TOOSOON and the solution might be to userfy the article in the creating editor's userspace. Actually, I'd favor userfication over deletion, as if he does turn out to be a top sire (as was the case for Tapit, also retired early due to injury), then the editor can easily bring the article back to mainspace, and in the meantime, draft space and user space is not a significant draw on the bandwidth of the WP servers. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete agree with Bcp67. He might sire some good winners, but we don't know right now. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can see that the subject does not technically cut the mustard wrt WP:NHORSERACING, but there is quite a lot of RS in-depth coverage including some from non-specialist publications like USA Today so maybe it could pass on General Notability. I'd be loath to lose this article as it's well-written and clearly organised even if the creator needs to work on her use of refs. Tigerboy1966 07:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:13, 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) 22:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Crescendo[edit]

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter who was a former member of the Paradiso Girls. There are no references currently in the article. Notability is not inherited. Article fails to meet WP:GNG. The article subject does not have notability on their own, and as stated earlier, notability is not inherited. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable and an apparent serious case of 'fancruft'; see for example this elaborate template: Template:Paradiso Girls. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible indication the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Skelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY with only playing in the low- to mid-minor leagues and no awards (2nd team All-SPHL is far below any assumed notability). Yosemiter (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with @Yosemiter: on routine coverage. Minor league transactions, brief mentions in game reports, etc. SPHL is not part of the developmental league system as ECHL or AHL are, so no SNG helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover Research[edit]

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

Nonnotable business Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: Company on list of marketing research firms. Comparable to many other research firms in the article space, and more viable sources than most other companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.110.130 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no independent sources which discuss company in depth. Either press releases or mentions in passing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=140772650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.110.130 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is exactly the kind of source which is disregarded in notability discussions: a standard marketing blurb. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Staszek Lem I would also appreciate an explanation for why this article must be deleted when Forrester Research is live in the space and doesn't even have any viable sources attached. All links are not working.
~~Keep~~: Some sources might be press releases or mentions, but others are research articles published by the company. In addition, many of its peers within the marketing research firms page don't even have viable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresearchguy399 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote stricken out, per admission. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the same account as 50.74.110.130 . Please don't vote from different accounts. This is forbidden in wikipedia and may get you blocked from editing. In any case, the votes of new users are disregarded in deletion discussions. Therefore if you have a brilliant idea to recruit your boyfriend for this !voting, forget it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Staszek Lem I am well aware it was the same. I was not logged in for my first vote so I logged in for the second one. Did not mean to cast two. From my experience with Wikipedia though, I appreciate kind collaboration instead of rude remarks via this space. You could be blocked from editing as well for your assumptions and inappropriate remarks. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.110.130 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page was the subject of two different discussions regarding the acceptability of Draft:Hanover Research - it was determined that the draft was not acceptable (on top of the three declines). This current version is a copy/paste pagemove, so if kept it will need a histmerge. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are trivial mentions or PR. No passing of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 26 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia[edit]

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

Nonsense article, a polemic of sorts, or an attempt at polemic. Its sources are blogs and an anti-Islam wiki. Quick, someone cry censorship. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I've been censored :)

Delete as above, on specific grounds of WP:POLEMIC and soapboxing, and more general grounds of being completely non-notable. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 04:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable; article makes no claim of notability. This is more screed from aggrieved editors who now realize they can't get their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources, subject isn't actually wp:notable, article makes no real claim of notability. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that serious sources have treated this as a topic. Blogs do not an article make. This essay applies here, IMO. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also clear PoV pushing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three references in the article are unreliable. The fist one is user generated, and the other two are blogs with no indication of reliability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. No indication that any credible sources allege the existence of such bias. Finally, the content of the "article" has nothing to do with its title. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic personal polemic, failing WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, and probably speediable as nonsense under G1, but never mind, deletion at AfD will suit its lack of content perfectly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all above and because article uses unreliable sources and is basically an essay. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 11:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete for many reasons, not the least of which is lack of sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is probably a way to have a well written article on this subject, it would need to be based on reliable source articles, and reliable source coverage of anything about Wikipedia is still in a fairly early stage, and what there is tends to be focused on notions of some sort of Western, American and European, especially British bias. Beyond this, the article as written seems to really be more about anti-Anti-Islamic bias on Wikipedia, that is a refusal to give equal ground or consider as reliable sources polemics against Islam, not a special treatment of Islamic sources. Lastly those at Getreligion.org would cringe at this articles basic assumption that there is one Islam, that could possibly be uniformly the beneficiary of bias, when in fact some of the harshest screeds against some forms of Islam, such as the book The Two Faces of Islam were written by practitioners of different forms of Islam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. An essay not acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. This has to be a pretty clear violation of all three despite the research's short length. I read this and just thought: "Is the writer being serious?" MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:KILLITWITHFIRE and WP:SNOW! Hmmm, I see that the former link leads to WP:TNT, but please only blow it up and do not start over. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:17, 24 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew White (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 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) Meatsgains (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Jieyou[edit]

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

I'm unable to read Chinese but it appears the subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--seriously? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am also unable to read Chinese, but I try to make up for that by reading English, and this is both English and indicative of notability. And here is mention of a 41-hour drama series named for her (starring Yuan Hong (actor)!). This paper is a chapter from this book; the author wrote four books on China and is a professor at Virginia. I'll quote: "It may be that the absence of detailed narrative about Wang Zhaojun in primary sources itself encouraged later writers to ﬁll in the gaps. As we shall see below, the case is quite diﬀerent for another woman, Liu Jieyou 劉解憂 (120–49 BCE), the second Chinese princess to be married to a Wusun ruler, whose story is told in great detail in the Hanshu"--that is, in the Book of Han. Let's withdraw this, Meatsgains. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 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) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzfeezy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG nor WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It has not met standards of major recognition nor has the producer made popularity. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the standards: it's a list, not a biography. Fails to provide reliable sources. Wapunguissa (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 25 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. Michig (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fu[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. The PROD was reverted three times without due cause. Artist does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Netherzone, you need to read up on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (or 'PROD' for short), as it is something completely different to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (or 'AfD', which is where we are now). In short: "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Once a PROD has been removed, it is no longer eligible for that deletion mechanism. Hence, this edit summary was totally out of place. Schwede 66 10:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Schwede66 for pointing this policy out. I now understand that it was OK for the other editor to remove the tag. Netherzone (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete nothing comes close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV. Only one source, NZ Herald, can be considered notable and that includes only a passing mention of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Only one credible reference in the article, however this gnews search shows possiblities, although I aren't sure whether its concerning the same person here. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not same person. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron McMurray[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Resume like. reddogsix (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deleting this page. All this information can not be found all on one page on the internet. It took newspaper archives, SoS searches, and more. Also with all the other party chair/ executive director pages on Wikipedia for Idaho and other states have more or less the same amount of information yet none of them are up for deletion (Wikipedia review roulette I guess)IdahoSolo (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AVOID. We do not keep articles just because somebody worked hard on them, if the results of their work are not compliant with our inclusion and sourcing standards. You wasted your time, and that's not our problem. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass — political party chairs can be notable if they clear WP:GNG on the sourceability, but are not guaranteed inclusion just because they exist. But the referencing here is almost entirely to primary sources that cannot carry notability at all (for example, the raw tables of election results on the Secretary of State's website do exactly nothing to aid notability at all), the amount of reliable source coverage is not enough to clear GNG in lieu, and unsuccessful candidates in primary races do not automatically get articles just for being candidates either. And yes, this is written much more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. It's not our role to provide one-stop shopping profiles of every single person who exists, without regard to whether they clear our notability and sourceability standards or not, so "all this information can not be found all on one page on the internet" is not in and of itself a reason to keep it either. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 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 redirect to Shooting of Robert Godwin#Suspect. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 05:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Williams Stephens[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Having a separate page for Stephen and the murder he is the chief suspect for is redundant. He fails WP:BIO without the significant media frenzy that has surrounded his murder case. At the very least, this should be merged into Shooting of Robert Godwin or vise versa. One page is sufficient to cover a story that, unfortunately, will not be as covered as it is currently being covered in April of 2017. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concur. Merging makes the most sense. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to Shooting of Robert Godwin#Suspect. BIO1E with no significant content to merge. Already covered in the event article. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting of Robert Godwin#Suspect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting of Robert Godwin#Suspect. Insufficient notability to warrant standalone article. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not even written under the correct name of the subject, which is Steve William Stephens, not Steve Williams Stephens. WWGB (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Redirect also to not taint the good name of "Dr. Death" Steve Williams. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Auburn Riot[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON are obvious. The name of the article made up by an editor that is apparently pushing an Alt-right agenda. I am One of Many (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that for an article on a riot, it is remarkably devoid of any mention of rioting. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pushing an alt-right agenda..." Except I'm not close to being alt-right, try again. EthnicKekistan (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, and maybe you even believe it, but all we can go by is your actual edits here, which do in fact appear to be pushing an agenda. Also, in this specifc case you wrote an article on a riot that hadn't happened yet but that you apparently decided was going to happen. That isn't ok no matter what your agenda is, you can't just make up an event that you think might happen and expect Wikipedia to host an article on it. I think an argument could be made to speedy delete this as a hoax. It is now 9:30 in Alabama, and still no reports of actual rioting. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is making an article about a subject, promoting their beliefs? You think I wouldn't list it at a hate group, which would seem to undermine their promotion efforts. Perhaps I'm just interested in the subject at hand? EthnicKekistan (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made up the subject at hand. Not one of the sources you used has the word "riot" in it, and I just searched again to see if there was any new coverage indicating a riot and didn't find one thing. That being the case, I have nominated it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning on rename to 2017 Auburn protests. KMF (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken another look for coverage, as this actual event is long over and it is about 1:30 AM in Alabama. As far as I can tell, three people were arrested. Three. This is just not a significant event no matter what we chose to call it and there should not be any article or redirect. At the very most, a brief section in the article on Spencer is warranted. We shouldn't let someone make up a non-event and then argue about what to call it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox I'm in agreement with you here - I don't see how a redirect is warranted whether it's protest or riot but given the moderate coverage in media, a mention in the Spencer article is probably warranted (not as a riot.) There is not a single reference on google to "Auburn riot" in 2017. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DECLINING SPEEDY One may argue the notability of the event here, but the article is not a hoax or vandalism. An event actually occurred, though the article exaggerates its significance in a politically charged, emotional appeal fashion. From a political perspective and being of the other persuasion(mein Hertz schlägt links), I see it less as pushing an Alt-Right agenda and more as the work of someone of my political persuasion. Be that as it may, the hoax argument is something of an ad hominem and I find it unpersuasive in this discussion. Let the AfD proceed. ~~If the article survives, it should be renamed as suggested on talk page and as recommended by KMF.~~ struck Dloh cierekim 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 10:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily object to declining it, but I do object to your chareaterization of the nomination. At the time this was created, the speech hadn't even happened yet, and yet here we had an article on the riot that occured during it. Riots usually aren't scheduled in advance and announced in reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant info into the Spencer article. This is not a notable event, and not a riot, in any case.Rockypedia (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't an article about a riot include some mention somewhere of, you know, a riot? Even with a name change, this is a case where a controversial person was to give a speech, and others did not like that. That happens all the time; thoroughly commonplace. If there's anything about this one that makes it stand out, where is it? Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouting and small crowd fracas hardly stretch to even the most minute definition of 'riot'. Also reads more as a WP:PROMO of an unremarkable speaking appearance than any serious attempt to describe a conflict around an event. My patience is exhausted with the article creator too; they were brought up on ANI with a UAA issue and in the aftermath of the Republic of Kekistan AfD, the community showed incredible patience thinking the two weren't connected, but this shows my fears were warranted. Nate • (chatter) 14:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and add relevant content to the "public speaking" subsection of Richard B. Spencer. I also think we need to explain to whoever created this article how Wikipedia works; this is information that was going to be added to Spencer's article (especially given the judge's order), but it's a waste of our time to try to make a separate article out of this non-event. Please respect our time.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which speedy deletion criteria? Dloh cierekim 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or Snow Delete if you prefer. I don't think anyone seriously thinks this non-event is history.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pity is we do not have an appropriate speedy criterion. <sigh> Best to let the process run its full course to avoid creating grounds for appeal. And you might be surprised how hard it can be to gain consensus for a deletion. I was. Dloh cierekim 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear WP:SNOW situation. I also think a reasonable argument could be made that WP:A7 applies. A7 covers events, and an article on something that didn't actually happen by definition does not make a credible claim of significance. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As things that didn't happen for $500, Alex. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a non-neutral article about a minor event of unestablished and unlikely WP:LASTING significance. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and it would be perfectly justifiable to speedy delete as a blatant hoax, CSD G3) - no source reflects any "riot" occurring. The sources show that a neo-Nazi spoke, a few hundred people demonstrated, and there was one fistfight. This is worthy of two or three sentences in Richard B. Spencer and possibly one line at history of Auburn University. Nothing more. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adding my flake to the SNOW. A "minor disturbance involving three arrests" (per the current lead) neither qualifies as a "riot" nor merits a standalone Wikipedia article. (I understand the article initially described a "current period of civil unrest", which was inaccurate.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd rather see headline renamed since it appears it wasn't a riot. But the event received substantial reliable coverage. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The legal battle before the event is what got the majority of the coverage, and in fact was the only coverage available when this ill-advised article was created because the actual event had not in fact taken place yet. In all, it's a minor legal decision by a regional court that could easily be covered ina few sentences at the article on Mr. Spencer. If it turns out later to have some far reaching impact on future legal decisions, I could see the case itself having an article, but not his minor event. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non event subject. This is not notable. No merging of any part to anywhere else is warranted. The article, starting with the title, is an attempt to inflame emotion and blow out of proportion said non event. As many have said before, Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battlefield, so this article is not suitable for these reasons as well. The event-- misdescribed as a "riot" is not notable in and of itself, lacking in significant coverage. As Beeblebrox points out, "the legal battle before the event" and other content not directly related to the event per se has the majority of coverage. Squeeze it dry and shake it out, and the gist of the story is this-- A controversial figure chose to speak at a school where the students found his presence and his message objectionable. Demonstrations of those objections got out of hand so that three people were arrested, an unspecified number were injured. (note the vagueness of "several" in the article)-- This is hardly sufficient for an encyclopedia article, despite the attempted conflation of background and exaggeration of actual occurrences. Perhaps enough for a feature in a newspaper-- Wikipedia is not the news. Dloh cierekim 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General question Was this the event that the police unmasked ANTIFA protesters? Cllgbksr (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched "police unmasked ANTIFA protesters" and came up with a whole pile of alt-right blogs and other unreliable sources, so I guess... maybe? Not sure why it matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter other than unmasking ANTIFA protesters being a new twist by law enforcement. Was just curious. I was referring to an article I saw which is a reliable source. [62] Cllgbksr (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing particularly unusual about that. One the cops came up witht he idea of designated protest zones around controversial events (which seems like it popped up in the ate 80's/early 90's) they've often used them to control crowds in this manner. No masks, no metal objects bigger than a car key, no pepper spray that you keep for defense, pat downs and metal detectors, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not significant, let alone having anything to do with establishing notability of the subject. Dloh cierekim 03:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for the federal court decision, see SPLC Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; incident merits a brief summary @ Richard B. Spencer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 23 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 closed, wrong venue. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headhunter series[edit]

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

An unnecessary and redundant template article. There are two Headhunter games: Headhunter (video game) and Headhunter Redemption. Wikipedia guidelines stats that only a primary article is made when there's 3 video game articles in a series and an unrelated video game or media item. This doesn't seem to fall under that per WP:NCVG. Neverrainy (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:TFD

KMF (talk) 00:52, 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. No consensus to delete, and this is the wrong forum for proposing a merge. Michig (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duncan (podcaster)[edit]

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

Per WP:1E, content from this article should included into the The History of Rome (podcast), and this name should redirect there. LK (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast is notable in addition to The History of Rome, thus I do not believe it makes sense to merge everything into The History of Rome (podcast). Wikipedia pages on podcasters are fairly common, usually meeting notably criteria, especially those with many sources available - see American Podcasters" Gloriousglib (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing references, article appears to lack secondary, independent reliable sourcing to establish Duncan's notability, under simplest of WP guidelines.Cllgbksr (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Articles about bloggers and podcasters seem to have a tough time avoiding AfD on wikipedia. In general, I think that blogs and podcasts can be reliable sources when the creator of the blog/podcast is an expert on the subject. This is in line with WP:RS. Given Duncan's coverage in podcasts (such as an interview at Podcast squared) and coverage throughout the blogosphere, I think he has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The difficulty with bloggers and podcasters is that there is no editorial oversight to insure quality and some degree of NPOV. Are they expected to pass WP:Prof or the much lower standards of WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
keep per smmurphy Toveswuu hed (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wikipedia's notability criteria, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I contend that sources from Vox, PodcastSquared, Forbes and Isthmus suffice this requirement. Thedropsoffire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned by other editors, significant coverage in independent reliable sources are present in the article. Additionally, the rationale in the AfD request is based off of WP:1E, "People notable for only one event", and I am unclear as to how two podcasts running a combined eight/nine years qualifies as "one event". Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:38, 25 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UIC (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I hate that because it was kept 11 years ago via an AfD it can't be PRODed today. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO by today's standards. Nothing in Google or anywhere else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that were used to justify the article's passing the previous AfD are nearly all non-WP:RS by current standards, being mostly blogs or not significantly about this band. The one RS was an article in the Toronto Star concerning their break-up. Since that time, a large amount of entirely unreferenced material has been added by IP editors. Attempted searches do not find any verifiable information that would satisfy either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:46, 26 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 4-H. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4-H Nova Scotia[edit]

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

Article, based entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source media coverage shown at all, about one particular regional chapter of an international organization. As always, every local chapter of a large organization with many local chapters is not automatically entitled to a separate standalone article just because it exists -- reliable source coverage needs to be shown to get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4-H. I agree that it is not notable, but there seems no harm to assist people in finding the best title for this search term. MartinJones (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a valid search term. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 26 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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AOR Racing season 12[edit]

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

Article for an online video game racing league with no indication of meeting WP:GNG or of any WP:SIGCOV in third party sources. An article about the website which runs the league (Apex Online Racing) was previously deleted after AFD discussion in July 2016. Original PROD by User:Pichpich was deleted by page author with rationale given at Talk:AOR Racing season 12. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original AFD also had a pair of season articles attached and subsequently deleted. This also is a delete, both per the nom and the evident precedent. --Izno (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has this article actually done any harm to anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr17 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about harm, it's about the standards Wikipedia has set for what is included in the encyclopedia. An online racing league that receives no outside coverage is simply not notable (see WP:N). RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of basically everything in the world. You can see that it is a RACING LEAGUE with links to the races. This is a RELIABLE source. There is nothing wrong with making an article on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr17 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of basically everything in the world." - Wrong. Read the policy page RA0808 linked for you.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated, the Apex Online Racing AfD sets a clear precedent. Moreover, all the sources for the article appear to be WP: PRIMARY.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This WP stuff makes no sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr17 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the league isn't notable and neither is an individual season. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable. ~barakokula31 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cjr17 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)How do I make it notable then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr17 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't "make" something notable, it either is notable or it isn't. A league run by a group of online racing game players that has received no significant coverage in unaffiliated reliable sources does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Again, please see WP:N and WP:YFA. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally put a PROD tag on the article. I agree with the above: this does not meet the general notability criterion for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably just a snow vote at this point, but I was unable to find anything either. All the sources in the article are YouTube videos or primary. Fails WP:GNG for these reasons. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Lepricavark. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cant be boverd arguing with you guys, you might aswell just take it down now. Cjr17 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until you do some research as to what things factor in on whether or not subjects get their own articles, this is probably correct. But these things usually run for 7 days unless someone uninvolved closes it early. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third-party sources that shows the event notability, easily fails WP:GNG. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:11, 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.

[1] Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova". wikipedia.

[1]