Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 August	19 August >

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 redirect to Monster. Redirect is good. They're cheap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous[edit]

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

Everything on this DAB page - except for wikt:monstrous - is a WP:PTM. I propose delete.

If this page goes, then Monstrous (disambiguation) will be an orphan and should go too. Narky Blert (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Monster, which at least provides the origin of the term. bd2412 T 03:58, 22 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher C. Adams[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. Has roles in several anime series, but cannot find RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No anime conventions featuring him as a lead panelist. Only one significant role as Crow in Yu-Gi-Oh 5D's. That's about it towards WP:ENT No notable non-voice acting gigs. No sources besides a single end credit screen capture from BTVA, so I would have to assume based only on his own resume that he voiced Crow. The other Yu-Gi-Oh role is not a main character. WP:TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails the GNG. No source of indepth coverage could be found. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:52, 26 August 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 merge to Ram Bahadur Bomjon#Media coverage. This should be a selective merge, with regard to WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERCITE. There's a suggestion here to skip the normal redirect after the merge, but I don't see any further discussion of that, so I'll just leave it up to whoever does the merge whether to leave a redirect behind or not. See WP:SMERGE to make sure we comply with attribution requirements after the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies[edit]

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

This very long article appears to be a POV fork to present all of the negative information about the subject.

This article does not indicate that the media coverage of the subject is itself notable or deserves its own article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there is room for elaboration of many of the paragraphs, it goes much too far to delete the whole entry. It abounds with very well researched information and is a very useful resource for people who want to know more about the many controversies surrounding this man.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And something else Robert McClenon: you are complaining that there are no external links to this entry. Correct, hopefully the will come, but what can you expect from an entry that was added two days ago in it's entirety? Best wishes, --Mathilde2009 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't say that anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pe nominator. The most permeant coverage should be summarized in the main article. Overkill does not reflect the actual subjects notability.PRehse (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then. But someone wrote: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (August 2017)

And my point is valid, I'd say.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new section Ram Bahadur Bomjon#Media coverage, and, after combining with existing info from Ram Bahadur Bomjon#Claims of media, delete that latter section. There's no reason for such extensive coverage. Most of the coverage is duplicate coverage of a few events, and so leaving it all in there indirectly violates WP:OVERCITE. No redirect - a granular search is not necessary when all the info is in his main article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give time for TimTempleton's merge suggestion to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with TimTempleton's comment about merging, but after reading the article and the sourcing, it appears that the article is mainly a WP:POVFORK with quite a bit of WP:OR. Merging the content as-is would present a pretty serious WP:UNDUE problem; I think references to these controversies definitely belong on the main article, however. Cthomas3 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - The author of this article posted the following to my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Media_on_Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon.27s_controversies My talk page isn't the proper place to make the case to keep an article when there is an AFD. I would ask that the closer take it into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, this new user (first registered edit 10 Aug) was unaware how to find this AfD entry page. He asked me on my talk page as well and I have now forwarded him a link to this page. Loopy30 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no reason for such extensive coverage", Timtempleton writes. What is the source for those words? I would say that, on the contrary, there is ample reason for this article because Mr Bomjan is at the center of a rather dangerous cult. [Would be] Followers looking him up will mostly find propaganda produced by Bomjan's adepts and little that will help them to move away from Bomjan and regain their independence. So, this Wiki entry is a rare, easy to find and useful resource for these souls. Deleting this article will help the inner circle of the adepts and Mr Bomjan himself, not those trying to research him and find reasons to severe their links with him. --Mathilde2009 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deferring to WP:CRITS which says to avoid articles or sections just on controversies. It can be kept balanced, but in this case this info can be dramatically condensed and merged. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Timtempleton: That very Wikipedia page says: "WP:BALASPS: "the weight a Wikipedia article gives to criticism of its subject should be proportionate to the overall weight of such criticisms in reliable sources on the subject of the article." The rest of my argument is found on my own Talk page, as I don't want to fill this space. DarkAges 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mathilde2009: All the more reason to move the controversial information to the article itself. If the main article shows both points of view, weighted appropriately, all readers can decide for themselves and they will not be unduly swayed by either the positive-spin main article or a the negative-spin controversy article. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and merge per TimTempleton. The main article appears to currently have WP:UNDUE favorable information about Bomjon and his group of followers, and the tags that claims are not in the refs are worrisome. If most of the articles about them in reliable sources have been negative, then most of the article text based on those sources should be proportionally negative to maintain a WP:NPOV. — Jeff G. ツ 14:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and merge as per Jeff G. ツ if I have a right to vote about my own article (please advise). I am sorry to come late here, I was not able to find this link (Thank you again, Loopy30!). Reading your suggestions, I can agree with merging. I also took to my heart what Robert McClenon complained about, that it is too long. I think partly because - to enable quick search for references - I made each media entry as a single subtitle. This created an endless List of contents. I still consider these rather formal and cosmetic problems and can be solved easily. Someone above mentioned that same events had been mentioned repeatedly. That was my intention, so that there is proof from at least two independent sources that the event really happened. Please advise me what is the priority between the two approaches (shortness of final text versus reliable information from different sources)? TimTempleton and others suggested merging with the main article. I think it could be done in a way that the first descriptive part could go to the main article, and a "dry" list of the medias could make a new article of the type of "List of...". I have no problem to elaborate a list of "positive links" in the same format to have them all in one "List of" page. But in this particular case, I am afraid, mentioning just one or two links from the long list of sources about his controversies would not be reliable enough to positively prejudiced seekers for information, because this is an area full of mystification and there are claims the media had conspired against Ram Bomjon. I totally agree with the logic of Jeff G. about the importance of seeing the proportions between negative and positive information. I also agree with Jeff G. "the tags that claims are not in the refs are worrisome" in the main article. DarkAges 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also Mathilde2009, thank you to bring to the attention the need for reliable sources for those who really need them. It could even save some people to become his new victims, I am confident, because the drastic SEO of the propaganda pages about this person pushed out the critical articles from searches. Let me just add what I wrote to Robert McClenon, that because the article has in its title that it is about media and the controversies they cover, it is containing much more links supporting a negative image than a positive one. The article is not a biography or a general overview. But still it has many links to the main article and links to the cult's organization, their literature etc. - I counted, after latest editing, more than 26 links which belong to the "positive image" part. Which POV Fork would do that...? I also noted to Robert that not a single sentence is without reference to media sources. I think most opinions about POV Fork, WP:OR or WP:UNDUE are caused by not clicking on the links and not checking the reliability of quotes and claims from the references. I think anyone who have stayed Nepal or reads about it, or experts in Buddhism, recognize easily the notability of the article topic. Thank you everyone!DarkAges 19:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 19:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:POV, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even if this was not so close to bollocks because of how badly it's written, I would still delete it as . Bearian (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't bite newcomers @Bearian:. If the article is badly written, it can be improved, isn't it? Try to rewrite it, but why do you want to throw away a precise work in a good intention to provide a balanced picture? First look at the main article, and if that you find well written, impartial, neutral and well sourced, fair enough. Yet then cult propaganda and irrational statements with no other proofs than their own blogs will be regarded as Wikipedia standard, and serious works based on multiple mainstream media sources as "badly written". Also, the main article's biography stops somewhere in 2010, with a jump to 2012 mentioning one controversy in a single sentence. I disagree with you Bearian, as I am not pushing any opinion, I do not need to push anything, it is pushing itself to your eyes if you read those sources, check out the photos and news links, for example the Image TV channel showing his bloodied victims. One photo to an article in the Prateek Daily shows his own mother at the local police station reporting her son for keeping her and other 4 siblings hostage for five days, beating them and kidnapping the youngest daughter: do I need to push anything about this one? I only collected the sources, and put them on display alongside the "positive image" ones (more than 20 of these), if you care to read and distinguish them from each other. I could have just listed the links and not add descriptive text, yes, but then those unfamiliar with how things were evolving over the years, would not understand how it is that there were (seemingly) no (searchable) news for ten years, or why we find the controversies only in archives now: so I added the descriptive first part to explain the reason for uneven media coverage. ... However, the main article intentionally left out the most drastic controversies and mentioned only three, and only in two lines, and had not been updated by the latest interview where the follower actually admits Bomjon had hands in the death of his sister (Setopati). Can you put on a balance the two things? What is more important about a celebrated religious leader? Information (from mainstream media) about people being kidnapped, beaten to blood and (apparently) even killed, or a holy legend about the length of his hair and whiteness of his robe, and claims of inedia without any proof? As Jeff pointed out above, proportion should be kept. Thanks for thinking twice. This comment is reduced, the full version is on my User Talk page. DarkAges 22:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 22:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs) [reply]

I completely agree with you, Kaliage. And to Bearian: If "pushing a point of view in violation of our charitable charter" is a problem, then why not delete the mostly hagiographic main article about Bomjan? This is not a rhetorical question. In the meantime I agree with Kaliage that there is no need to push the subject matter of this article because it pushes itself when you follow the links given. --Mathilde2009 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few things in there worth keeping to the main article on there. Otherwise, I don't think it stands as an article on its own. South Nashua (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to South Nashua It would be more constructive to give reasons, South Nashua. Articles solely focusing on controversies are many on Wikipedia. If there can be published controversies about Mrs. Clinton or Buddhism openly, or about totally unknown figures like Bulssy Jaybyeon (have anyone heard about him?) why not about a Nepalese religious leader with organization branches in the US, Japan and Europe? Any scientific reasons for such selectiveness...?Thanks.DarkAges 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Comment @Kaliage:Sure, happy to elaborate. There are few links in there that meet RS on a few of the controversies in the main article that can't hurt to be added (i.e. - the incident with the Slovakian). Also, a courteous tip, it's common practice on Wikipedia to use four tildes after each comment in non-article space and you also might want to use the ping template if you're talking directly to another person in a discussion. South Nashua (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @South Nashua: As Jeff G. ツ pointed out, and also this Wikipedia page, the proportion of what is more in reliable sources (not on Google or cult-based sources), "admiration" or criticism, should be mirrored in the article. The main article has not kept faithful to that proportion. It deals with romantic mystifications, while the mainstream Nepalese media (which that author forgot to mention at all) had been describing over more than ten years a series of rather criminal deeds. So if you just add a few links from my article to the main one, without changing its whole structure, you will not mirror the true picture. Moreoever, don't know if you really read these things, but actually the link about the Slovakian had already been there, in the main article (in one sentence). So I am confident that there is also a need to show that his controversial actions are not just occassional "mistakes" but a regular pattern on a nearly yearly basis(a few lines down I show you why), and if you count, those victims are more than a dozen. Can you just satisfy a ten years long media coverage of his criminal deeds (totally ignored in the main article!) with adding a few other media links to the main article? The rest of my comment is on my User Talk page, not to fill the space here so much. DarkAges 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Timtempleton; this article is inappropriate on its own, but much of its content seems to be needed in the main article to restore balance. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to GrammarFascist Thank you for your suggestion. I don't mind merging it with the main article, but there are important descriptions in the first part to understand the situation of media in that country, and the proportion of the coverage about controversies towards the propagandist sources should be kept according to reality. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight" as well as ""WP:BALASPS: the weight a Wikipedia article gives to criticism of its subject should be proportionate to the overall weight of such criticisms in reliable sources on the subject of the article." Thus, if you want to merge it, OK, but please allow to mirror the reality in the proportion between negative news coverage and positive one. Actually I was not trying to write a biography, my article's main focus was solely on how the media perceived Ram Bahadur Bomjon, how many controversies he did over the years, how media was blocked in truthfully covering his controversies from 2012 till today and replaced by their "own media", actually how the cult PR, based on media influencing, is working in this case. That's why I added the first explanatory chapters (Violence against media, Censorship, Media as enemy) - they explain how the media coverage was evolving over the years, as influenced by the cult's efforts in a Third World country which is vulnerable to bribes.If there is any possibility on Wikipedia to check the "readership" counts of articles, I would request you to check how many readers read the main article. There are too many people searching for the truth about this person, but on the main article they do not find that (full) truth, and then they go to Nepal and get chained, raped and beaten... That is simply not fair. If you allow me to share with the public this complex view of his all media-covered controversies (and the explanation why they don't see any more news about his controversies in Nepalese mainstream media from 2012, and that after meeting the ex Prime Minister he is now celebrated as an untouchable national saint in Nepal), the wide public will appreciate it very much. People deserve to know the background of this cult, the full picture, from a reliable source like Wikipedia. Now, when he is invited to the USA, Europe, Canada etc., Westerners are desperately seeking updated information about him and his new religion, but they cannot find it on Wikipedia. In Google they get mostly propaganda or unreliable blogs. It took a nearly superhuman special effort to dig out the truth from the archives for me! But please understand me: I don't mind changing the tone of the title - "Ram Bahadur Bomjon and the media" or "Ram Bahadur Bomjon in the media" would be more neutral?, and I would add more "propagandist" (old and sensational links when even Western media admired the teenager meditator as "the new Buddha") to balance the mainstream media's more than ten years long negative coverage. Please advise, when can I get "endorsement" to start to merge the two articles, or am I not entitled to do that? Thanks.DarkAges 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helmes AS[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable local company, failing WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CORPDEPTH, GNG. South Nashua (talk) 14:45, 23 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Powell-Thomas[edit]

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

feels like advertising ~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Matt's talk 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't look like advertising to me, but the only thing I can find online about either of the books is the fact that they are on sale. Nothing else mentions either the books or the author. Neither of the works appear to be notable, which implies failure of WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete. Like the editors above, I searched, found nothing except confirmation that the books exist. Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON in this writer's career, but do note that these are a children's book and a local interest history book, put out by publishers with which I am not familar. I suggest that the next editor who comes close discussion as delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON as noted by E.M.Gregory. This is a new author who has first published this year. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 33-page book released this year with no peer review or reliable sources is probably not cause for a Wikipedia page!Pupsbunch (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Corporate News Network[edit]

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

Unable to find in-depth coverage for company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Searched for variations including "Japan Corporate News Network" - "Japan Corporate News" - "JCN Newswire" CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 22 August 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. The consensus is that due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, the subject of this article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Patrick Acquaviva[edit]

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

Non relevant, John Patrick Acquaviva is a Youtuber whose biography includes several false and primary sources, and the article fails many notability guidelines as specified in the first nomination. I'd also like to ask for a semiprotection of the creation of the article in case it is deleted a second time. Jamez42 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 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 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per previous discussion. I am not seeing a whole lot of new content online that would indicate a reason to change the result from the first AfD. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John is one of the most important political activists in venezuela currently, as you can see from his hundreds of thousands of followers, verified accounts on facebook and twitter and millions of video plays, but besides that, his sporting success itself is enough to mark him as relevant for a wikipedia page, he was the first football freestyler to ever carry the olympic torch and he established the first ever freestyle football academy in venezuela besides winning several national and international competitions, furthermore, this seems like a censorship attempt as if you go into user "Jamez42" page you can see he is involved in venezuelan politics as he has changed several articles relating to venezuelan political figures such as Henrique Capriles, John had his youtube account suspended due to a targeted attack by youtubers "Danna alquati" who has 300 thousand subscribers and "La divaza" who has over 2 million, and is constantly getting temporary bans due to how controversial he is, this is nothing more than another attack. Do Not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.97.191 (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation This case is loosely reminiscent to José Rafael Cordero Sánchez, a Venezuelan that created news articles to include as sources in his biography, whose creation was blocked in several Wikipedias. Many of the current references in the article are broken, perhaps deleted by the news portals, or include videos from his Youtube channel that have been removed. The only source claiming he carried the torch in the 2012 London Olympics is La Verdad, but other networks such as El Impulso and El Universal don't mention him. What I find worrisome is that 81.108.17.28, the only user objecting to the article's deletion, created it again months after, and when the article was nominated for speedy deletion 31.50.208.58 and Readertv also objected to its deletion, accounts whose contributions to this date only are in the talk page, possibly being single purpose or sockpuppet accounts. His biography has already been deleted four times in the Spanish Wikipedia, and for these reasons I believe that either him, but more likely his followers, also try to promote him as an activist and as an athlete whose relevancy is not proven. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The personal attack of an IP that started editing minutes after I nominated the article for deletion only confirms my suspicions and highlights the importance of a creation semiprotection. Notability of biographies are not proven by followers or verified accounts, but by accomplishments. If John has previously had several temporary bans in Youtube it makes me wonder if there are any other reasons besides "being controversial". --Jamez42 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to explanation: Carrying the Olympic torch (while a very cool thing) is unfortunately not notable unless there is something that sets them apart from the nearly 200,000 other torchbearers throughout the various Olympic Games (like actually getting to light the cauldron itself). Number of social media followers or YouTube views are similarly not a gauge of notability (see WP:NFRIENDS). If he is indeed as important an activist as you claim, there should be a substantial independent news coverage of him somewhere; I personally am not finding it. Can you point us toward some? It is possible that I am not seeing Venezuelan news in my searches, so if there are some reliable sources out there, please list them. Cthomas3 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to explanation:

Hi, while I understand Jamez's arguments, he needs to understand that John is from Venezuela, a country that has one of the most censored media in the world, most of the articles speaking about John's accomplishments as an athlete from Venezuelan outlets have been either deleted or the websites are no longer active due to the government having closed them (Such as NTN24), and from 2013 onwards John was blacklisted by the Venezuelan government so was obviously cut off from media access in the country, however, there are many many tv interviews of his on youtube, but I take it you dont accept videos? (If you do let me know and I will gladly make a list), besides that, there are countless pictures and videos of him carrying the torch, plus, here is the official UK embassy in Venezuela mentioning him for having carried it https://twitter.com/UKinVenezuela/status/214343370733142016 he was the last of 3 Venezuelans to carry it and since he wasnt part of a federated sport most outlets didnt find out he carried it until after he had returned to Venezuela, he explained this in one of his interviews for state run VTV (one of the biggest tv networks in the country) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG7VXwZjVSQ, there are also interviews of his in american outlets such as infowars, https://www.infowars.com/man-escapes-socialist-venezuela-backs-trump/ however I take it you wont accept a source from that site? I find it hard to understand how you can decide to delete an article due to something that is out of the persons hands (such as sources being deleted), even though there is an archive of media interviews of his in video format and on social media there are countless examples of his relevance. He is not the most famous venezuelan political figure by any means, but he is ceirtainly noteworthy to the point of being included in wikipedia. Thanks for your attention and sorry for my bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1202:AE00:C571:CEE9:BC4D:F2A (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2A00:23C5:1202:AE00:C571:CEE9:BC4D:F2A: I am from Venezuela too, born and raised in Caracas, as well as a member of Wikimedia Venezuela, and this is the first time I hear from John Acquaviva. I won't dismiss your sources since they are independent, and both the tweet and the interviews demonstrate to some extent the content of the article. Regardless, he's still far from being considered notable as an activist or sportsman. While I'm not denying that there's a lot of censorship in my country, it's far from being "one of the most censored media in the world": Reporters Without Borders ranked Venezuela 137th out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index 2015. This means that it's still possible to find more and better sources of Acquaviva. Take for instance Wuilly Arteaga, the violinist demonstrator: Google Searches quickly throw articles from El Nacional, Runrun.es, Globovisión, El Carabobeño, Tal CualDigital and El Universal, all Venezuelan outlets and just in the first page of results! It's to be expected, his violin was destroyed by a National Guard, he has been beaten up, arrested and tortured, even when the court sentenced his freedom. Taking another example, Laura Biondo, another Venezuelan freestyler, articles from El Nacional, Noticias24 and Analitica, due to a simple reason: being in the Guiness Record 2017 for breaking the record of most around the words in one minute. Without digging in too much, they both seem to have more notability and yet they don't have articles. The question should be if Acquaviva has any recognitions such as awards or has taken part of a landmark event, even if they aren't the most important ones. You don't have to apologize for your English, feel free to edit any time you want! Although I'd recommend that you create and verify your account: anonymous and IP accounts can be mistaken for sockpuppets or single-purpose accounts, specially if they started editing exclusively for voting to keep an article nominated for deletion. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Northamerica1000: In this edit, you moved this article from draft to mainspace. But an article on this person had previously been deleted via AfD. Were you aware of this earlier deletion? -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago. I don't believe I was aware of the first AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response(talk) What you are not taking in to account is that none of the articles you sent for either Laura nor Willy are even 1 year old, while John retired from freestyle at the end of 2012, and as you are aware being venezuelan, from 2012 till today many media outlets have been closed down and many others simply dont keep such long records of articles posted, which is why several of John's refferences listed in his wikipedia page are now unavailable, but as mentioned the videos are still there, including tv interviews with hundreds of thousands of views for one of the biggest networks in Colombia, RCN, https://www.facebook.com/AcquavivaFS/videos/10154360228121360/ so trying to compare Willy who became relevant only in the past 3 months and whos likelyhood of remaining relevant within a year are slim to none, or Laura, who managed to break a female world record (so not even the open record which was more than 3 times the amount she managed to break), but besides that is largely irrelevant as she has no influence in social media and is not much more than just an event promoter, doing a few minutes of search on social media will show you that John has been attacked by both the government and the oposition due to his opinions about them both, because of this he has been No-platformed from Venezuelan media time and time again, likewise with groups such as "Movimiento nacionalista Orden" who even though they are the fastest growing non MUD political movement currently they still never get invited on to any shows other than on tiny networks once or twice, I would find it hard to believe that there are many freestylers such as John Farnworth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Farnworth or Victor Rubilar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Rubilar whos main accomplishments are breaking some world records who are allowed on wikipedia, yet someone with the trajectory accross sports and now politics that John has is found to be irrelevant, so it leads me to believe that as has been said previously, this is another targetted attack on John, in his previous AFD you can even see that the person who put the article up for deletion went to twitter to brag about it saying that he was going to get Acquaviva kicked off wikipedia, which led the article to be given protection due to vandalism back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1202:AE00:747A:77:1E3B:D3DE (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This is stranger and stranger. Above: the long IP number says: this is another targetted attack on John, in his previous AFD you can even see that the person who put the article up for deletion went to twitter to brag about it saying that he was going to get Acquaviva kicked off wikipedia, which led the article to be given protection due to vandalism back then. The previous AfD is here. Within it, I cannot see what you say I can see. Only admins can see the history of the deleted versions; there's no sign within it that the article was ever protected (or semi-protected). Long IP number, why should we believe the rest of what you say? -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: The only mention of the Twitter incident that I know of is in the article's talk page, commented by a single purpose IP (31.50.208.58) that also claimed that Acquaviva was personally being attacked. Strangely enough, both this and 86.16.97.191 are IPs from the United Kingdom according to an IP locator, country where, from what I understand, John currently lives in. There are lots of alternative media today in Venezuela to broadcast news on the Internet: Prodavinci, VivoPlay, VPI TV, Efecto Cocuyo, Caraota Digital, Capitolio TV, El Tambor, El Pitazo, and so on. There are lots of ways he could get more coverage even in exile like figures such as Manuel Rosales, Carlos Vecchio or Franklin Nieves, but the sources provided here suggest that Acquaviva's only a not too well-known political commentator from Youtube, and as stated before, social networks don't count as coverage in Wikipedia. The persistent use of single purpose accounts only leads me to believe that someone, or a group, possibly from the United Kingdom, is trying to push his agenda and promote him in Wikipedia via multiple accounts, and as I have also mentioned before, this is the reason why its article has been deleted four times in the Spanish Wikipedia, twice because of "promotional" content and "conflict of interests". I think discussing this further would be redundant. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, nothing has changed in the last two years, still fails WP:GNG. Oscar_. (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued by Jamez42. As this will be the fourth deletion of the article, salt in the hope of saving time in the future. (If the biographee later acquires notability of any kind that Wikipedia recognizes, a would-be biographer would be able to appeal to whoever deleted the article for the fourth time.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no citations or reliable sources. Looks self-written. Pupsbunch (talk) 18:57, 22 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack in the Box Worldwide[edit]

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

Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are references but they come from unreliable sources and are general announcements or brief mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am finding a number of references online, but most of them appear to be press releases or other content generated by the company itself. The remainder are minor mentions in passing. This may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cthomas3 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:CORPDEPTH Spiderone 10:38, 25 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporate Presence[edit]

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

I tried to trim down the promotion but the only source I could find that is remotely in-depth would be this one from the Financial Times. Company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I left all the promotional content as I didn't want to make it seem like I gutted the information just prior to making the deletion recommendation, but much of the wording would need to be removed. CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and HighKing. Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:54, 26 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Edward and the Secret of VBS[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book by non-notable authors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward Book Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward and the Time Traveling Adventure. Article author and at least one IP has attempted disruption of these other discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non notable self-published e-book. Fails WP:NBOOK and is probably an advert. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward Book Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward and the Time Traveling Adventure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both articles already deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published book with no secondary references. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and is promotional like all the other pages associated with this series NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:30, 22 August 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 06:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Kakalidis[edit]

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

Delete. Dimitris Kakalidis is not notable neither as a writer/poet, nor as a scientist/thinker. The article is purely promotional, and lacks evidence proving Kakalidis' notability from third-party, independent, and reliable sources. "Omilos Eksipiretiton" is a legal entity created by Kakalidis himself in order to promote his "work"; see references of "Omilos" to the so-called "Great Master", "poet and philosopher Dimitris Kakalidis". On the other hand, all of Kakalidis books have been published by "Omilos", they are self-publications, since "Megas Seirios" is the printing house of "Omilos". The videos in the references are productions of "Omilos" ("νέα σειρά εκπομπών από τον Όμιλο Εξυπηρετητών" = a new series of videos by "Omilos Eksipiretiton", as noted on the Youtube Channel) The only source that seems to be independent and reliable is the article by Fevronia Christodoulidi and Paraskevi Kostopetrou. But it is not! Kostopetrou is Head of Megas Seirios Publications, while Fevronia Christodoulidi is a member of the "Omilos" too. The Greek article on Kakalidis has been deleted after discussion for lack of notability——Chalk19 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of people publish their thoughts but not all are notable. This person badly fails the prof test. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 22 August 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 06:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue[edit]

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

Hipparcos mapped millions of stars. The initial catalogue of 1997 included 118,200 stars. This list of 8 stars in Andromeda makes no sense at all. Uncited, unclear, non-notable. — JFG ^talk 19:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article was abandoned with only 8 stars in the list. The list is effectively pointless unless complete, and complete would be about 175,000 entries. Lithopsian (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the other arguments, but how are these "uncited" when the whole point of the list is "stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue", and they are even listed with their HIP numbers? That's obviously the citation. postdlf (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this list were complete, probably 97% of the entries would be red links. If somebody a full listing of the Hipparcos catalogue, they'd probably download it from VizieR instead. Loooke (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1964 May 1 Parade[edit]

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

Unclear why this parade is more notable than any other parade. If it's an annual parade, there is no reason to have one for each seperate year, unless there is something distinctive that occurred. Here there is very surely not ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of this article has been making many similar (1972 October Revolution Parade, 10th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, 2014 Astana Defender of the Fatherland Day Parade, 2017 Minsk Independence Day Parade, 2011 Yerevan Independence Day Parade, 1989 Kishinev October Revolution Parade, 1941 May 1 Parade, 2012 Dushanbe Victory Day Parade, 2017 Astana Defender of the Fatherland Day Parade, and many more), all of which should probably be deleted. There's no claim of notability. May Day parades are common, especially in the Second World. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I note there is a template for Mayday Parades in Moscow, but all except 1941 are redlinks. Such articles should not be encouraged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of many such parades, few that are well-attested. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 22 August 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 06:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberators (comics)[edit]

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

Article is pure plot, with no out-of-universe info. This group has appeared only in The Ultimates 2, a comic book that already has an article. That article has a plot section of an appropiate size, so merging all this plot minutae would not be advisable Cambalachero (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A redirect to The Ultimates 2 doesn't seem worthwhile, since anyone familiar enough with the subject to search for this team will be able to find the comic series. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the article is linked to by a hatnote in The Liberators; if the page is merged or deleted, that should be changed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 22 August 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 blanked by creator. ... discospinster _talk 03:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic World Tour[edit]

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

No idea what this tour is about, I can't find any sources about it. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discospinster, it may have to do with Miranda Lambert, who has a song titled Automatic. The song seems too old, however. Can't find anything about it, either. Home Lander (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged the article as a possible hoax. How are attendance and revenue already known when none of the dates shown have yet been reached? Home Lander (talk) 18:06, 18 August 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. Unanimous consensus to delete, modulo the article's author. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coseer[edit]

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

Non-notable startup, created by an SPA that added spam links about the company around the encyclopedia in an attempt to promote it. The coverage of this article is your standard startup press coverage: non-notable awards, one-liners mentioning its use, coverage on industry blogs, and listings of products. These either don't meet the coverage expected under WP:CORPDEPTH or excluded as counting towards notability by WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is textbook WP:SPAM masquerading as an article. shoy (reactions) 17:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is "Write yourself a WP article" now part of the standard start-up checklist, along with registering a domain and printing business cards? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it seems so. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coseer is an established startup in the cognitive computing space, and has garnered enough real press coverage over the past five years to be considered notable. Current citations reference credible third party publications. A google search also reveals many third party links that have not yet been added to the page, including the following: https://www.citrix.com/blogs/2015/02/09/michael-harries/ http://www.govtech.com/civic/GSA-Hackathon-Sought-Tangible-AI-Solutions-for-Making-Government-Data-Accessible-Via-Personal-Assistant.html http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/Features/ECM-preparing-for-the-future-111271.aspx https://www.techemergence.com/how-cognitive-computing-can-change-the-nature-of-business-operations-a-conversation-with-praful-krishna/ https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/interviews/Coseer16.htm The founder is a regular on the AI conference circuit. There is no funding information, but that should not be a criterion for notability. CognitiveAI (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For anyone else who comes along: the first source provided is a company blog. The second source is a mention in an article about someone else and then a quote from an employee. The third source I can't access (doesn't give a valid page). The fourth is a podcast interview with the employee of the company, so its a non-independent primary source. The fifth is an interview with CEO/CFO magazine with the CEO, which again, is a non-independent primary source. This is the type of coverage this startup receives, and like all other startups that receive virtually identical types of coverage, it does not amount to notability under WP:N when the guideline is read as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Original references in the article are all reputable third party sources. They do have quotes and interviews from the founder, but are still independent, and difficult for the startup to sway. http://thesiliconreview.com/magazines/magazine_profile.php?id=82 - http://cfi.co/awards/north-america/2017/coseer-best-intelligent-workflow-technology-united-states-2016/ - https://cognitive-solutions.cioreview.com/vendor/2017/coseer - Pasting the links from KMWorld below again. They can also be accessed by going to Kmworld.com and searching Coseer. http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/Features/ECM-preparing-for-the-future-111271.aspx - http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/Features/Text-analytics-and-beyond-111925.aspx?PageNum=2 - http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/Features/KM-and-the-environment---Water-management-uses-analytics-big-data-and-collaboration-to-handle-complexity.-118371.aspx?PageNum=3 - Visit https://coseer.com/blog/category/events-and-mentions/, which catalogs the startup's press coverage and events. There are 27 different entries, way more coverage than a non-notable startup would receive. Assuming this is a bootstrapped startup, the amount of coverage generated is reasonably significant. CognitiveAI (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment They may very well be reputable third party sources, but the articles themselves are not intellectually independent as they rely almost entirely on company-produced material or quotations from company sources. The references therefore fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Find a reference that doesn't rely on quotations from company officers or material provided/published by the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The coverage of Coseer meets the following criteria as per WP:CORPDEPTH... Coverage in each of the links provided above is substantial - Multiple independent sources have chosen to cover Coseer. The sources have independently judged that Coseer should be awarded Best Cognitive Computing company, Best Intelligent Workflow Technology, and 50 Fastest Growing Companies, among others. - One of the publications goes to the extent of featuring Coseer’s founder on the cover page along with IBM Watson, the preeminent Cognitive Computing solution: https://cognitive-solutions.cioreview.com/Rank_subcat_images/9cn1lpage.jpg - Evidence has already been presented in previous comments about Coseer's work being used in enterprises as well as the US government since its founding in 2012, and the substantial volume of independent coverage Coseer has received. CognitiveAI (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Response I requested that you find references that do not rely on quotations from company officers or material provided/published by the company in order to safely meet the criteria for establishing notability - specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. References must be intellectually independent in order to meet the criteria for establishing independence. Articles that extensively quote an interview with founders or company officers are not intellectually independent and are regarded as PRIMARY sources since all the facts and information is being relayed by the company or its officers. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closer This is the second !vote from this editor as this editor has already !voted above.
- Sorry, my second vote was an error, please ignore. CognitiveAI (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've struck your second !vote for clarity. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn, with thanks to SoWhy. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd E. Lenard[edit]

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

Don't be fooled by the apparatus (the plethora of wikilinks and the massive infobox): this is not a notable person. Lenard was a parish commissioner (not something that generates inherent or other notability), wrote a few books (none of which seemed to have been published by a notable publishing house, or received any decent coverage), and served on a party committee (as one of 144). The most important claim, that he was "a pioneer in the establishment of the two-party system in his native Louisiana" (which, embarrassingly, made it to our front page), is in no way verified: it is typical Billy Hathorn-style puffery, turning local people into national heroes. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Far be it from me to defend the actions of a banned user but Lenard actually might be notable. Thanks to my newly granted access to newspapers.com through WP:LIBRARY I found articles on him ranging from back in 1955 until recent days. I haven't had time to analyze all 700+ matches but these clippings seem to indicate he might actually pass WP:BASIC, even if only barely: [1] [2] [3] [4] Regards So Why 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK--but the second one (from The Times, Shreveport) is merely a brief bio since he's running for something, as is the third (for a nomination), and the fourth is similar--these are hardly "coverage" though they indicate that the person had a certain local standing. None of them are really articles about him that discuss him and his work; they're more reminiscent of a Who's Who kind of thing. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:BASIC multiple such sources can be combined to establish notability if no single source covers the subject in depth. I'll see if I can find the time to check the other 700 hits. Regards So Why 16:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I give you 24 hours. Drop everything and get to it. :) Drmies (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir! Okay, here are two more articles about his books from 1994 and 2001: [5] [6] (part 2). An editorial about how he attacked people burning Confederate flags and defended both the flags and what they stand for (another one) Something about him having a role with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Something about a seminar (from 1961). Basically, there are newspaper articles about him from 1955 to 2001 at least, not always huge coverage but more than just run-of-the-mill local politician coverage (somewhat unfortunately because I really don't like "Confederacy is great!" people). Most of the rest is ads for his practice or similar. Regards So Why 18:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 2001 book article claims he is listed in Who's Who in America which (if true) might be sufficient per WP:ANYBIO alone. Regards So Why 18:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never considered the Who's Who to be anything and I thought that was the common way of thinking, but so far you are doing really well, SoWhy. For your next assignment, five more sources while juggling three soft-boiled eggs. Hey thanks: I'll look at a few more things you found and probably withdraw this. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Who's Who might be considered an American equivalent to Dictionary of National Biography (which WP:ANYBIO mentions), but I haven't actually checked if this was already discussed. Feel free to contact me anytime you might need access to older newspapers (or just sign up for it through WP:LIBRARY yourself, it's free!). Regards So Why 16:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 19 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Organising Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable, and the sources do not establish any notability. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definately notable. COC, CPI(ML) was one of the three main inheritors of the original CPI(ML). The party had branches across the country. Just see the passage on COC, CPI(ML) in Andhra Pradesh, which alone certifies notablity. --Soman (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems to be a historically notable organisation. Very good sourcing including in books. AusLondonder (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced article on a political party, an eminently notable topic. Meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Mz7 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Roe[edit]

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

Eugene Roe was one of the medics in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank (Technician Fourth Grade) or his highest award (bronze star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he went on with his life, garnering no significant coverage. The character "Eugene Roe" in the Band of Brothers miniseries was a dramatic construct; there is no evidence of his having met a Belgian nurse during the Battle of the Bulge. Roe as good as many other good combat medics. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not notable for stand alone article and re-direct the name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). I checked older newspapers but there are no mentions of him anywhere before Band of Brothers began. Regards So Why 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 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. The consensus is that due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, the subject is not notable at this time. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Windows[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant third party coverage of this individual per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only third-party source given (NY Times) only identifies him as the person in a photo but does not mention him otherwise. ... discospinster _talk 14:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I should jump the gun and delete under WP:BLP since it's making primary source based-original research claims about living persons. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research? The archive.org links were sent to me, they are in the public domain and have been viewed by numerous people. BM85194 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are interpretation of primary sources. We can't take a statement from someone and describe it as antisemitic, we have to get a professionally-published secondary or tertiary source that identifies the statement as antisemitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will work harder to get him exposed in a primary source. BM85194 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BM85194: No, primary sources are the problem, the article needs professionally-published secondary or tertiary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and bordering on WP:G10. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed several sections. No longer a case of WP:G10. He's still not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see absolutely nothing here that allows him to even come close to being notable. It's not our job to host anybody's work on our website; not are we a publisher of any primary sources. Using us for profit purposes jeopardizes out charity status. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 22 August 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 06:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Valley[edit]

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

A housing complex with no claim to notability per WP:NPLACE.

Also adding for the same reason:

Cefncaeau (another housing row)
Ddôl Fach (an unremarkable farm) ... discospinster _talk 12:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ddôl Fach is an unsourced article which actually qualifies for speedy deletion as an article about a business with no claim of significance, but since it is here we may as well let it run the AfD. The other two are ordinary housing estates with no claim of significance at all, and no sources either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I know the area (which is no reason to keep, I know) but it does contain not only the housing development but also a small series of reservoirs that certainly did provide the water suply for Llanelli. It is referenced within Wikipedia at Swiss Valley Reservoir and other sources show that it is a name in common use such as here and here and the community is well enoiugh established to have its own web site here. However Ddôl Fach is firmly a Delete. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My criterion starts with the Ordnance Surveys maps, and Swiss Valley does not appear there. The Swiss Valley Reservoir article is valid within the topic of 'water', but that does not give any entitlement to a nearby settlement. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:18, 24 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SE Ranking[edit]

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

This is a non-notable business that does not meet notability criteria outlined in WP:CORP. Sources that mention the subject are mostly non-independent (press releases) or just standard business directory listings. Many of the references do not even mention SE Ranking. No significant coverage. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independence of sources ("A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.") --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 22 August 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, nac SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irshad Hussain[edit]

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

no coverage in RS. there are numerous namesakes in Gnews. Saqib (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:Prof#C1 if this [7] is the same person. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: he contributed to most of the articles/work, but i don't see him as being cited or attributed. Am I missing something? --Saqib (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note two SPA's - User:Sahilchemist.abbas and User:Dawnchoice trying to alter this nomination in order to avoid the page from getting deletion . Likely socks. --Saqib (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as google scholar shows well cited works as linked to by Xxanthippe and it is the right person Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is well known in Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.220.11 (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as He is one of the best scientist in Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilchemist.abbas (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep --38.96.9.224 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Ashley[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability, very little source support. Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are certainly claims in the article that might qualify him if they were properly sourced, nothing claimed in the article automatically entitles him to keep it just because he existed — and the only sources present are a WordPress blog and his death notice on the website of the church that held his funeral, neither of which are reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can dig out enough archived coverage in media about his work to get him over WP:GNG, but nothing in this version cuts the mustard at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I added 2 more citations: 1.-The Governor of South Dakota ordered the flags at the South Dakota Capitol at half mast in memory of Vernon Ashley 2.Vernon Ashley was interview on Minnesota Radio. Vernon Ashley was the head/chief of a Native American tribe. The article shuld be kept since according to United States law, Native American tribes are concerned sovereign tribal nations-thank you-RFD (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works. Your source for the flags flying at half-mast is a government press release, not media coverage. Which means MPR is the only notability-assisting source here, but that's not enough sourcing to get him over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation from the Argus Leader-thank you-RFD (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Argus Leader citation is a 100-word blurb, not substantive coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's an article about him being named chief (including biography), another biography and an obituary with biography (all from Capital Journal, a RS) and here is an article in Rapid City Journal from 2012. Also, here are some older articles from newspapers.com: [8] [9] [10] (part 2). WP:BASIC is met with this coverage which spans newspapers from all parts of the US, not only local. Regards So Why 08:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the sources brought by SoWhy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per SoWhy. He was a significant tribal leader as verified by multiple reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a quick search and found sources. Ross-c (talk) 22:20, 18 August 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 Sportlobster. Mz7 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cary[edit]

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

the company he cofounded is notable--he is not. The material here is inappropriate for an encyclopedia--his parents' accomplishments , his amateur athletics, his girlfriend. The sources are trivial gossip notes. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of an encyclopedia is 'giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject' this is what I've done. Perhaps the subject matter doesn't interest you but he's been documented heavily around his 'amatuer athletic' achivements and charitable donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiebaron (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Eddiebaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Sportlobster - I am not finding sources extensively discussing him allowing him to meet WP:PERSON. There's an interview with him on Computer Weekly, but it's interviewing him in the capacity of a Sportlobster executive - the focus is on Sportlobster's plans, strategy, etc - there's no material about Mr. Cary personally. The podcast interview is better but not really a source for notability, and there's a lifestyle piece and a friend's blog about his (admittedly pretty damn impressive) amateur athletics career - but he doesn't meet WP:NATHLETE for that. I definitely think he's more notable than his partner Olivia arben, an article on whom by the same editor I speedied, and we can reconsider this in future if his subsequent career gets more attention, but right now as Sportlobster seems to be notable a redirect seems best. The author says he is a friend of the subject and this article is clearly the result of some thought so I'm sorry about this, but this isn't right for us at the moment. (Just to explain to the page creator - all of this material e.g. family background could be appropriate if this person was already notable - but it’s not enough for us to take an article on by itself, especially if it’s from your own knowledge of your friend and not from published material.) Blythwood (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sportlobster. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. Redirection is functional as per WP:ATD-R, as this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 19 August 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 07:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hammarskjold[edit]

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

Stub cites a photo caption and a press release. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found plenty of PR and brief quotes, but nothing substantive in arms length, reliable, secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a tag for improvement is in order. However, believe he passes WP:ANYBIO. Featured in national business publications such as Forbes, passing the 3rd clause (The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.) Hyungjoo98 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually click through on that purported Forbes link? It looked like a computer-generated filler page to me, not a feature article... Carrite (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, the authors ongoing pattern of creating articles about non notable alumni of the Hill School makes WP:PROMO a factor here. John from Idegon (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:John from Idegon, could you identify why this article does not pass WP:ANYBIO instead of just stating it. WP:PROMO does not apply, I am not publicising anything on this person, I am not affiliated in any way. Please could you keep your comments on the content, as outlined in WP:PERSONAL. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid newspaper, what school a person went to does not make a person more or less notable or should factor into whether a article should exist.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom alphalfalfa^(talk) 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 10:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTINHERITED merits mention, as this is a grand-nephew of Dag Hammerskjold. Google footprint is small and I am not seeing anything that would count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:42, 19 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Khana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH, insufficient sources, promotional tone. Reads like a part of their website. Kleuske (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks promotional to me. Deb (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would gladly volunteer to clean up the tone of the page. The only problem is there are no sources in which to pull information from. A few mentions but that's it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Shegerian[edit]

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

Spammy advertorial about self-promoting businessman. Little independent in-depth coverage. Another case of using Wikipedia for promotion. Too much about his personal life, his horses, and his causes. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "spammy advertorial" indeed, with copy such as "As part of an examination of marketing and social responsibility, John was featured in a case study in the fourteenth edition of Contemporary Marketing..." etc. Insufficient independent sources to meet WP:BIO; basically, a promo piece. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. classic example of promotional editing, magnifying the accomplishments. Notability is at best borderline, but irrelevant: the basis principle of Wp content is nPOV, which is expressed by the rule NOT PROMOTION. All the significant contributors are users who have done nothing else, one of the clearest signs of unconstructive promotional COI editing. I cannot tell whether or not it was paid, but it needs to be deleted regardless. Accept this and we're no better than Who's Who in America. Before anyone decides to see how many references they can find, they should realize that it makes no difference. NOT PROMOTION is fundamental policy and no promotional article can be allowed to corrupt the NPOV of the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 23 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carney R. Shegerian[edit]

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

As per WP:PROD by User:K.e.coffman, this is a spammy advertorial article on a self-promoting lawyer. Lots of vanity and incidental coverage, but no real in-depth independent coverage. Just another case of using Wikipedia for promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confirming my PROD: An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable attorney. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions or PR driven. Awards listed are not significant, and notability is not inherited from clients. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. advertising. G11 is appropriate. I suppose coverage of the cases could be found, but it's irrelevant--we could probablty on that basis include every trial attorney. The area o the business he is in depends on publicity, but he can get it without us. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mii Baby[edit]

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

I don't think this quite fits any CSD criteria, but the reference are all just passing mentions or hosted by the company itself. It shows no importance or any coverage in any news sources. TheMesquito^buzz 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A news search just brings up press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable brand, and, as written, is marginal as to G11 as advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Corporate ad for a run of the mill company. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:46, 19 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abi & Abi Pictures[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails GNG, and is sourced by dubious sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear GNG failure; article has been tagged as such also Spiderone 10:42, 25 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba Dokur[edit]

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

Contested prod, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NHOCKEY and GNG. No evidence of significant coverage and, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not seeing anything in the article that is not WP:PRIMARY. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in a depressingly large number of NN Turkish hockey players that both fail NHOCKEY and the GNG (and that will no doubt see the usual suspects toss in the usual spate of namedrops and trivial mentions, and allege that those meet the GNG). Ravenswing 09:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, I hope I'm not a "ususal suspect" (c'mon, how ABF can that get?). Fails the GNG. All I see is listing mentions, nothing directly about. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:57, 26 August 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 Yaşar Doğu. Mz7 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinem Doğu[edit]

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

Contested prod, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm also happy with this now some content has been added at the relevant article. Fenix down (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her grandfather Yaşar Doğu, as is often done for non-notable athletes related to notable ones. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Faye Lund, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Doolittle (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), all of which were closed in the same way. Additionally, there are plenty of similar redirects which were never subject to AfD as they have always been redirects, including Tyler Nevin, Ryan Ripken, and Tate Matheny, among others. Smartyllama (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Ryan Doolittle article referenced above has been relisted per a deletion review, due to indication that he may pass GNG. There is no indication that anyone believes the decision not to delete was in error. But that's why it's open right now. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Yet another among many Turkish ice hockey players (male and female) that uses only WP:ROUTINE coverage as sources. (I could list the problems like I have at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kübra Dadaşoğlu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanay Günay, etc. but it looks like I am just repeating the same things in a different order.) As for the redirect, it would be fine if that article actually mentions her. As of right now, the target does not, so it is therefore an unsuitable redirect destination. Yosemiter (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yosemiter: Fair point - I have added that information to his article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. With Smartyllama's changes, I think the redirect to Yaşar Doğu#Personal is acceptable. Yosemiter (talk) 16:28, 18 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceren Alkan[edit]

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

Contested prod, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:58, 25 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baker and Partners[edit]

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

An unremarkable law firm; significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Citations listed in the article consist of passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or other unsuitable sources. Likely created for compensation; pls see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Another_day.2C_another_sockfarm. PROD removed by a SPA Special:Contributions/Nathannicholls. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of in depth coverage beyond press releases indicates a failure of WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like BakerPlatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted a few times already. Also Bakerplatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Curious. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article makes no substantial claim of notability: the firm's appearance as one of seven in the Legal500 list for Dispute Resolution in Jersey is insufficient for encyclopaedic notability. The other references are run-of-the-mill passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:20, 18 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne McCafferty[edit]

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

This page seems to have been created in relation to her role as a failed political candidate, which doesn't confer notability. Her business roles and her past as a chief of staff for a state government minister are also not notable. Grahame (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections that they didn't win — to satisfy WP:NPOL, she has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run and lose. But there's no supplementary evidence of notability for other reasons being shown here at all — the content about her prior career in business is referenced entirely to primary sources, not reliable ones, and she isn't the subject of the source for being chief of staff to Greg Pearce, but merely has her existence namechecked in an article whose subject is Pearce. That's not a source that assists notability for that position at all — so we're ultimately right back to "notable because she ran for the state legislature and lost", which no, she's not. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty cut and dried. Bearcat says it all above. Frickeg (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I endorse Bearcat's sound reasoning above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is that the subject's publication record (and, more specifically, how often those publications are cited) is insufficent for WP:N and WP:PROF. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Plotkin (mathematician)[edit]

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

The article was de-prodded, so I am bringing it to AfD. I don't believe that the subject passes WP:PROF. There are no significant academic awards/prizes, no journal editorships or editorships of books or special volumes, no named professorship/named chair positions, no elected scholarly society memberships/fellowships, no named lectures or other highly prestigious talks, and no publications in highly selective/prestigious mathematical journals (such as Annals, Inventiones, Acta, JAMS, Duke or something close to that). The only plausible grounds for passing WP:PROF here is based on citability. GScholar[11]. gives h-index of 15, with top citation hits of 129, 71, 37, 36, 36. That's not bad for pure mathematics bit not sufficiently strong in the absence of other indicators of passing WP:PROF. Moreover, in math GScholar significantly overcounts the citation numbers because it counts citations in arXiv preprints as well as citations in published versions of those preprints. E.g. MathSciNet gives Plotkin a total of 367 citations with h-index of 12, and with top citations of 55, 31, 27, 20, 19. For his top-cited paper (on Chevalley groups), Web of Science returns 35 citations, and Scopus returns 66 citations. I did look up Plotkin's CV[12] at his webpage. There is one curious item there. Among the conference talks for 1990 he lists "International Mathematical Congress, Kyoto, Japan". At first I thought that this meant the 1990 International Congress of Mathematicians in Kyoto. If Plotkin gave an invited talk there, that would definitely have made him notable, the citation data notwithstanding. However, he did not. I checked the IMU page with the list of all the ICM speakers for all the years[13]. There only one Plotkin listed there, namely Gordon Plotkin who gave a talk at the 1983 ICM in Warsaw. It is most likely that Eugene Plotkin gave a talk in one of the satellite conferences organized in conjunction with the 1990 Kyoto ICM (those talks are just regular conference talks and don't carry any special prestige like the ICM talks do), but in any case he did not give a talk at the 1990 Tokyo ICM. All in all, he is an active and well respected research mathematician, but I don't see enough here to show passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Thanks for doing the citation research in the detailed nomination. However, I think that the MathSciNet h-index of 12 just scrapes through in a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as the listed publications in significant publications are an inclincation to consider significance indeed for WP:PROF. Although it's a fact we like the easy cases such as honorary professorships or similar, the publications alone can be considered sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, what do you mean? Which of the listed publication venues do you consider to be particularly significant? Among the publications listed, the journals where they appeared are quite ordinary or low ranked in math. E.g. from the 310 math journals listed in JCR with an impact factor, Journal of Algebra is ranked 168; International Journal of Algebra and Computation, and Comptes rendus are tied for rank 257. Communication in Algebra does not (as far as I can tell) have a JCR impact factor, and neither do Vestnik of St. Petersburg University and Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. These are not the kind of publication venues that are considered to be particularly significant and prestigious. Note that in relation to C1, WP:PROF explicitly says: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Nsk92 (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's having them cited that is sufficient (in this case marginally). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding the citations -- yes, that's an individual judgement call (as I said, in my opinion, in the absence of any additional indicators, I personally do not consider citability data in this case to be strong enough, although others may disagree). I was responding to SwisterTwister's comments above ``as the listed publications in significant publications are an inclincation to consider significance indeed for WP:PROF" and ``...the publications alone can be considered sufficient". Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Beautifully put by the nom.I had some thoughts on Xanthippe's arguments but the h-index seems low even for a scrape.If someone can bring any other argument of notability, I am willing to change my mind!Regards:)Godric on Leave (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not much useful at ru:Евгений Борисович Плоткин. He might sometimes appear as "Evgeny...", but no leads found. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Apparently I removed a BLPPROD from this article in early 2014. He seems to be a reasonably successful mathematics professor. But being reasonably successful as a professor isn't (and shouldn't be) the same as being notable here, and I just don't see anything that stands out as a justification for keeping this article. And it doesn't seem like it would cause much damage to the encyclopedia to let it go; it's not like it has a lot of incoming links or anything like that. We have a lot of other articles on academics of comparable or smaller notability, but that's also not a good reason to keep this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no notability. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:51, 20 August 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 (G7) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 13:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Roll[edit]

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

See WP:LISTBIO and WP:LISTPEOPLE, the guidelines on lists of people. Lists of people should be of notable people. This list consists of more red links than blue links, and some of these people will never be blue. See also the essay on list cruft, which this list is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list fails to meet Wikipedia standards.TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to discuss please delete it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the article creator themself has requested it deleted twice now, I have tagged it G7 which will allow for a soft-delete. Which, Elisa.rolle, should you did want it, will allow it to be restored to you and moved to user- or draft-space. On the one hand, since it's clearly unfinished, it should never have left draftspace; on the other hand, since it's clearly unfinished, there's no reason it couldn't have been moved there per ATD-I in the first place, and thus avoid this nomination. The opining edit even describes it as a 'work in progress.' Clearly no-one has ever shown the creator the {{in use}} tag! — fortunavelut luna 10:35, 18 August 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. Per this RfC, many arguments on both sides must be discounted. Quoting from the RfC, "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG". This impacts both keep and delete rationales in this discussion. On the keep side, several editors make arguments that boil down to an implicit appeal to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an accurate description of current consensus. That is directly contradicted by the RfC, which states the opposite. In particular, see the last sentence quoted above, which outright prescribes a delete outcome when such schools do not meet GNG. On the delete side, there is no evidence of a "deep search" that included local media and offline sources. Given all this, there's no consensus one way or the other. No prejudice against speedy renomination if a deep search is conducted beforehand. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumana Secondary School[edit]

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

The sources are contextless listings. The article was approved by SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) despite the obvious issues with the sources, which have not been appreciably changed since the article was approved. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete– or send back to draft space. As seen on the talk page I was trying to work with the submitter on bringing the article up to at least minimum requirements, but not getting much traction. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i cant find cites to article , i need help emps (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as given sources here, here and here would be enough for WP:V, which is all that's needed for verification. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the first two are just listings and the third is a name-drop. Secondary/high schools are no longer considered inherently notable, per this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the RfC did not overrule consensus. The consensus of notability still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC that came to the consensus that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is deprecated does not mean consensus? In what world do you live where that isn't outright double-talk? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC concluded that citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be avoided in AfD discussions. There was no consensus it was deprecated. Nor has it been cited by anyone here. But it still stands as a summary of consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The cited RfC didn't do anything of the sort. Like all discussions on the subject, it more or less ended n stalemate. Whether we quote OUTCOMES or not, it does not change the precedent of a process that has been firmly established through literally thousands of AfD closures over many years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung:--Inspite of the numerous times I agree with you, I dare say that your argument looks like some sort of circular reasoning.If the WP prefer(s) to operate in a type of positive-feedback-loop triggered solely by precedents, bringing any change anywhere will be terrifically difficult.Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per long-standing consensus at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed notability be regarded as notable. The flip side is that all but a few elementary schools are automatically regarded as non-notable. Inclusionists and deletionists each have something to like and something to dislike and we can all spend our time working on other things without slogging through 5,000 notability challenges a year... Carrite (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closure stated--Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well......do not make much sense and were discounted....Cheers:)Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC or no RFC about the applicability of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale, hundreds of AfD debates have been decided the same way — there is a long and well-established consensus, and I support it. Carrite (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of Swister Twister's proffered WP:V cites, only the middle one appears to mention the school by the name given here. Of the refs currently supplied by the article none mention the school at all, at least not at the landing page the supplied url goes to. While there may be a presumption that secondary schools are notable, the article's current sources are inadequate and I'd have thought it part of Swister Twister's responsibilities as AfC reviewer to supply the WP:V cites that needed to be there before the article was accepted, perhaps providing alternate names/transliterations for the school as it is known in Sri Lanka. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'll note the 3rd one actually mentions it but it's local language name; therefore that shouldn't discount from the fact it's in fact a valid source. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Special:PermaLink/767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability, secondary schools are not presumed notable. This is the most recent consensus on whether secondary schools are presumed notable. As such, the arguments of most editors supporting "keep" based only on the fact that this is a secondary school must be discarded as not based in policy or the recent broad assessment of consensus. Future discussion should focus on the sources and the notability criteria, not on opinions of what should be presumed notable. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you disagree with the close of that RfC. Also per that RfC, offline sources should be taken into account in deletion rationales.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. That is a misunderstanding of the admittedly very confused conclusion of that RfC. Checking back, it says there is no consensus that a mere appeal to SCHOOLOUTCOMES is sufficient. It also says there is no consensus to change the almost invariable practice that such schools will be considered notable. (If you see a certain amount of contradiction here, I agree with you). In practice, even since that RfC, almost all secondary school articles for which there is proof of real existence from a third party source have been kept, just as before. What has changed is that we have reasonably enough become a little more skeptical amount those with no sourcing besides their web site. There are sources here--see the previous versions of the article history. They're not very good sources, but I think they're sufficient. I also think it would be very valuable to try to find something better. Removing what sources there are and then sayign "unsourced" is not a fair approach--rather, their adequacy should be discussed at the afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG: something else the RfC found was that the systemic bias arguments were strong for maintaining the existing practice. One of our core content policies is that Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and this same principle applies to coverage. There is still a clear consensus on keeping schools in North America and Europe based on the regional sources that inevitably exist per WP:NPOSSIBLE, which constitutes part of the notability guideline just as much as the GNG does. I personally would actually support a policy of redirecting most schools towards municipalities or school districts, but this will never happen for those schools in the West. So long as this is the case, the principles behind NPOV require us to hold schools in other parts of the world to the same standards we hold schools in the West to re:notability. That means extending them the generosity of NPOSSIBLE if they show they are likely to have independent sourcing. I think that has been demonstrated here, and thus it should be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG and TonyBallioni, I don't follow all school AfDs, so I don't know how many have closed as keep versus delete since the RfC, but I am aware of some delete closures, including at least one European school (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Schaffhausen). There have been others of non-Western schools that were demonstrated to exist but not to meet WP:GNG, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother's International School, Upleta and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi]. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni:--While closing a long RFC, good arguments from both sides are mentioned (typically) but what matters is ultimately what stands out over one-another--which is(??) written in the nutshell.I am sympathetic to the arguments of systemic bias but the RFC closing statement wrote--Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources......If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted.I am certainly sure that those sources are the ones that SwisterTwister has brought! And, if these are the sources, we aspire for in an AfD, I can create thousands of articles on schools spread across the length and breadth of my country which are not yet covered on WP! Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: yes, that's the point. The offline sources ST has brought forth indicate it is likely that there are other sources that would at least meet the standards we hold Western schools to, which is to be honest, still just basically existing as any local school will have plenty of coverage in regional sourcing. This argument has always been why we kept schools, and was mentioned directly in the RfC close. Letting it basically be South Asian and African schools that we delete even though per NPOSSIBLE they would likely meet our sourcing standards if we had access to local non-English print media would be inappropriate and a massive violation of NPOV. Cordless Larry, the example of one poorly attended AfD for a European school in a non-anglophone country does not negate that as a whole, we keep Western secondary schools. Try to get rid of a random George Washington High and see what happens. We should by NPOV hold them to the same standards as schools in other countries, which the arguments in favour of deletion never do. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried arguing that local coverage wasn't enough at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union City Community High School, TonyBallioni, and it didn't work. I wasn't suggesting that the Swiss school AfD negates the general point that Western schools are kept, but rather demonstrating that they are sometimes deleted. I have a feeling that consensus has swung slightly closer to delete since the RfC, but don't have the stats to prove that. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, Cordless Larry, I know you weren't. Unfortunately our effort to clarify this with the RfC only muddied the waters. For what it's worth, I'm actually highly considering changing my vote to draftify per your argument: WP:N is only a guideline for inclusion while WP:V is a core content policy. When policies and guidelines are in tension, policies win out. I do need to consider how to balance V with NPOV re: schools, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send back to draft because the draft was accepted despite all of its references being non-verifying. The draft author should have been told this and given the chance to provide proper sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Talawakelle~~Delete/Draftify---Per arguments of NewYorkActuary.I don't find any astute reason for holding schools so dear to our hearts and given the circumstances--a redirect seems a much better alternative.And meeting notability guidelines far outweigh age-old practices/precedents as valid AfD arguments.To echo DGG I too seriously feel that the closure shall be re-ammended.I am not even minimally faulting the closers but it's close has become a new bone of contention among numerous School-AfD participants when it ought to have resolved another contention about SCHOOLOUTCOMES etc! And lastly, how these articles make way through AfC?! Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I raised that final question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help#Submissions with non-verifying references, Godric on Leave. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the reviewer.Usual shabby affair!Godric on Leave (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument of the relister that "the arguments of most editors supporting "keep" based only on the fact that this is a secondary school must be discarded as not based in policy or the recent broad assessment of consensus" is simply incorrect. Consensus has not been changed by the RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The long-standing consensus at Wikipedia is that secondary schools which are verifiable are notable. The RFC did not change this. I agree that it is a circular argument to say "Common outcomes say these are kept so this must be kept." Instead I note that years ago I saw rural US high schools up for deletion because the nominator could not find adequate references online. However, many regions of the US have no newspapers included in online compilations, while big-city newspapers are more likely to be available online. There is systematic bias even in the US. There is much more bias in the availability of news media for third-world schools. Experience shows that if non-online news archives are consulted, adequate references can be found to satisfy WP:ORG for "real" high schools, as opposed to a home school or a short-lived religious school taught to a few children in a church basement for a few years. High schools are major public investments which have regional or state-wide influence, generally over a long span of time. Edison (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note from relister. I want to be very clear on this. A recent RfC tested whether there was consensus to presume notability and therefore retain secondary school articles merely based on existence. The result was "no consensus". I have passed this by one of the closers of the RfC, and they confirmed that my reading of the close is correct (that closer was Primefac, for reference). Arguments based solely on the fact that there is consensus that verifiable secondary schools are presumed notable will be discarded, even if they constitute an overwhelming majority, per WP:Local consensus. We had a very large-scale RfC that tested this very question and concluded there wasn't consensus for that view, even if there also wasn't consensus against. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Primefac's view of the RfC close has been questioned in the past and consensus remains generally unchanged. Their opinion is merely an opinion and it has been disagreed with by other editors. No editor has any right to make the preposterous claim that "arguments based solely on the fact that there is consensus that verifiable secondary schools are presumed notable will be discarded, even if they constitute an overwhelming majority". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't realise quite how arrogant you sound. As always, closing an AfD is entirely up to an uninvolved closer and may be challenged at DRV. Issuing high-handed "instructions" that the opinions of certain editors (including very experienced editors) should be discounted is really not acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac was one of the RfC closers, so surely it's more than an opinion, Necrothesp? Unless you're saying that the close did not accurately reflect consensus in the RfC discussion? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac is just an editor like the rest of us, not some sort of supereditor, and the opinion of the closers has been challenged. At the end of the day, like most RfCs this was inconclusive, and its purpose (which was simply to formalise guidelines, not destroy existing consensus) was also misinterpreted. But primarily here I'm questioning Rob's pronouncement that certain opinions don't count because he and Primefac say so. Not how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I think my point is that if the RfC close is being challenged, then it should be done so formally. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I see the point of yet more hot air to arrive at yet another inconclusive "conclusion"! Best to stick with the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC to test whether the statement "Notability is presumed for secondary schools that verifiably exist" has consensus. That RfC was closed as "no consensus". I've double-checked that interpretation with the RfC closer, who confirmed that was the close. If you want to contest that close, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. With no policy or guideline to support that statement and the most recent discussion concluding without consensus for the statement, that specific rationale is not a policy or guideline based rationale. Per WP:CLOSE, policy or guideline based rationales receive more weight. This is all I'm stating. Nothing in there is particularly controversial. Note that it's not me saying this. It's the consensus at the RfC and WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, which explains how consensus is evaluated. Do with that information what you will, but do not be surprised if a closer does what the instructions say to do and discounts rationales that are not based in policies/guidelines. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the sources that Swister provided (this PDF here) is a 173-page file that lists government schools in Sri Lanka as of a date in 2016. I checked the first seventeen pages and found about 350 that provide instruction up through Grade 11 (essentially, what the British call "O Level"). And those same seventeen pages show about an equal number of schools that provide instruction up through Grade 13 ("A Level"). That's about 700 schools in the first seventeen pages, suggesting that the entire document shows something on the order of 7,000 such schools. Think about that -- if existence is the only thing needed to justify an article on a secondary school, this single PDF document can serve as the basis for 7,000 articles, each article being sourced to a single line in the document. And which national/state/provincial government on the planet doesn't keep such lists? Using existence as the only criterion, we'll have well more than a million such articles, the great majority of them just one or two sentences long. Indeed, that's all it took for me to add the school's information into the article for the town in which it is located (see Talawakelle#Main schools). As for re-directing to the article on Talawakelle, doing that for every secondary school on the planet would lead to a lot more than a million re-directs, because many schools with names in non-English languages will have alternate English spellings. They say "re-directs are cheap", but are they that cheap? I think not. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the first I'm aware of the RfC, but reading it now, it seems pretty clear that we always keep secondary schools is no longer a valid argument. NewYorkActuary estimates, above, that there's a million secondary schoods. English-language wikipedia has about 5.5 million pages. Is anybody really arguing that something like 18% of our pages should be for secondary schools? That would be absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 26 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Cotton (Manitoba politician)[edit]

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

This article was created (by me) in 2007, a time when any leader of a registered federal or provincial party in Canada was automatically considered notable enough for a biographical entry. Standards have changed since then, and there's nothing to indicate that the subject passes the current threshold for notability – he never received any real depth or breadth of press coverage, and not only was he not a candidate in the one election for which he was party leader, but the party didn't field any candidates in that election and dissolved shortly thereafter. I'm still an inclusionist when it comes to ambiguous cases, but this isn't one of these; the subject pretty obviously fails WP:NPOL, and there's absolutely no reason to believe the article can be transformed into something more credible. CJCurrie (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is entirely correct that Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians have evolved in the decade since he created this — we used to automatically accept all leaders of political parties, even minor fringe ones, but in 2017 we've deprecated that, and now require that the person is actually sourceable enough to pass WP:GNG in his own right. But Cotton just doesn't really have that — the party failed to nominate any candidates at all in the election that occurred during his leadership, and so the depth of coverage he needs to clear GNG just isn't actually there. Including his name in the party's article, without a separate standalone bio, gives exactly the same amount of information that we can actually source properly here. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Now if only we could change the guideline that says all athletes are automatically notable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 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). — IVORK _Discuss 04:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Bhattacharya[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a student leader of a minor political party, and the whole paragraph looks like something that could be put as an introduction section in a personal blog or website, even with the controversy which is "cited" with a Twitter link. There are no descriptions for how this person would show significance or events that would meet WP:N. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 01:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Had tagged with WP:PRODBLP twice and tried to explain to the user that Twitter is WP:SELFSOURCED to no avail evidently. Arguably comes under WP:A7 in it's current form doesn't it? — IVORK _Discuss 01:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As everyone said: Unnotable. No sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article fails to establish any notability for this person.TH1980 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Littlest Pet Shop: Unleashed[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES until debut. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an article for a forthcoming show, we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. We absolutely do not have that. None of the sources give the title and most do not mention a new show. 1) is a press release, not independent and does not mention a show. 2) is a tweet, apparently from a show runner (not independent) which mentions "a new TV Show on 2018". 3) is another non-independent press release which does not mention the show. 4) is a Youtube clip pushig new toys for 2017, with no mention of a new show. 5-14) are trademark applications, apparently filed by Hasbro for various character names -- a primary source which does not mention LPS, much less a new LPS show. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point I'm going with an elaborate hoax, judging from the 'Twitter source' being from Baja California...not exactly a hub of animation, and even beyond most standards seems like someone playing pretend (if they're a 'Hasbro insider', why are they mad at their own company about not releasing clips and posters?). We don't have a logo for the show itself, which is almost a sure sign of wool-pulling, and Hasbro probably trademarks names which will never see a store shelf. There's no proof of anything here (and considering they own part of their own network, that the original editor didn't think of that raises more alarm bells). Finally, going by the title, a girl-focused show (or a show in 2017 for that matter) isn't really going to use the word "Unleashed", which is a early 2010s artifact. Nate • (chatter) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article tells us that this series will not have its debut until 2018, and as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it would be wise to wait until 2018 until it has an article about it. Currently, the article is very short. Vorbee (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails verifiability all the way around. — Wylie pedia 05:42, 20 August 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. No consensus for a particular action has occurred in this discussion. Some of the !votes on both sides of the debate are subjective, rather than being guideline- or policy-based, and several users have opined for merging, the latter of which can be discussed further on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack[edit]

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

There is nothing noteworthy about any of these reactions. They are all totally predictable. The reactions of the principal leaders are already detailed in 2017 Barcelona attack and can be condensed; anything more than that is over the top. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is unencyclopedic, possible merge with 2017 Barcelona attack. Meatsgains (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This discussion has been had about twelve million times now. The consensus has been set. If it should be changed we should consider having it for all these articles rather than debating the same issue for each article to meet an inevitable conclusion of keep. This discussion is valid but a broader consensus is required to justify delete. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong kseep per above and it has been split too as an accommodation. Further, it IS thoroughly enclycopaedic if one realizes the purpose of an encyclopaedia.Lihaas (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which purpose does this refer to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - There is no reason to list these, on a separate page or not. --Dellavien (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This stuff will accumulate on Wikipedia so long as it's in the news. Better to have it here where people who like this sort of thing can read, write and ponder without disrupting a substantial article's readers, writers and ponderers, and never running out of space. Everyone wins. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no, it's not as simple as continually deleting it from there. You have to delete it, argue with someone, wait for it to come back, delete it and argue some more. Lasts for six days, on average. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If other articles about such incidents have a separate page devoted to reactions to them, this one can be kept.TH1980 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Category:Reactions to 2010s events. Most of their Talk Pages elaborate on why they exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yes, there are other articles like this, but generally I haven't supported keeping them either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do think this article is useful in some way, I also agree with the nominator. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The WP:OSE arguments are not very convincing. This is just a collection of quotes and usually expressions of condolences. It can easily be addressed in a much orderly fashion at the article regarding the incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through twenty or more, and none were easy or orderly. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then that just means it is not being conducted effectively. We do not need an article, whether it's a standalone or a section, which has lists devoted to essentially the exact same response. Statements which describe something such as a form of aid -- impactful and therefore notable -- can be included in the main article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably Merge next month. Better to keep all the predictable and less hotable reaction on a sub page. In a month after we are done with the pressure to add these, we will have firmer guidelines/decisions on what to retain and we wiĺl probably merge. The end result is better if we redirect the reaction pressure to a sub page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general consensus from the many discussions that have taken place on this subject has been to keep such articles. We should stick to a consistent approach. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondoner: if you look at WP:REACTIONS you will see that there is no general consensus - approximately equal numbers have been kept and deleted. Those that survive are predominantly more than just a simple list of quotes. Also, see WP:OSE - why should this article be kept? Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thryduulf: Because it was placed up for deletion in less than 24 hours and reactions take time to pour in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A separate page for reactions on the incident is insignificant in an informative context. Vignyana^talk 07:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to Wikiquote. Do not merge with main article. This is not an encylopaedia article, it is a collection of quotes - pretty much none of which are anything other than formulaic expressions of exactly the same things that were said after the Nice, Paris, London, etc attacks. Any quote that is the subject of discussion in reliable sources should be included in the main article with a sourced section of encyclopaedic prose about that discussion and why it is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to help keep this stuff off the main article and then PROD it in six months' time. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thincat: Why delete it in six months time? Either it's encyclopaedic now and should be kept now and in six months, or it isn't encyclopaedic now it should be deleted now and so we wont have it in six months. Also, any article that has been kept at AfD is ineligible for PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my mistake about PROD. Of course it's not encyclopedic but it's better to get on doing things that are encyclopedic rather than waste time over this. If this is deleted it will simply move the argument back to the main article. Thincat (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Neodop (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the main article (at least some of the quotes). Don't see the point of just having quotes in the reactions article. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 10:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - If this page is deleted, editors will immediately want to pollute the main article with useless pap and virtue signaling from the P.R. departments of politicians, expressing how "sorry" they "feel" and how they "stand" with the victims, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Better to keep the politician excreta and hot air quarantined. XavierItzm (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @XavierItzm: while I completely agree with your characterisation of this content as "useless pap and virtue signalling" I see that as a reason not to include it anywhere on Wikipedia - every page in the main namespace is meant to be encyclopaedic, not just main articles. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thryduulf: I am in agreement that, in theory, the politician P.R. hot air belongs nowhere on the Wiki; but the reality of the prevalent feel-good culture combined with the consensus/vocal minority of Wikipedia editing means that unless a dump is found for the feel-good edits, the feel-good pressure to add at least a significant amount of politician pap to the main article will be, in a word, irresistible. As it is, the coalition to keep the trash out of the main article via the dumping-ground secondary article strategy hardly even holds, already... just look at the comments above and below! Look, let's be pragmatic rather than idealistic. Help keep the dreck in a Reactions dumping ground! Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exactly like in other articles. One for the attempt and other for the reactions. --5truenos (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE Why is this article encyclopaedic? Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I apply the same criteria that in Brussels, Istanbul, Manchester, ...etc.--5truenos (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Manchester article has actual prose, which this lacks (it also has the flag cruft and quote farm which needs excising though), The Brussels and Istanbul articles are tagged as a WP:QUOTEFARM and so not reasons why this article should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:POVFORK. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Smerge with 2017 Barcelona attack. While not notable enough for its own article, the reactions are significant in painting a general portrait of the society and government in 2017, and should be on Wikipedia. Perhaps the list should be trimmed down to only European, North American, Middle Eastern, and countries from which victims originated reactions. alphalfalfa^(talk) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why trim down the list of countries in such a way that the country of origin of the terrorists is not included? Do you have anything against the fine country of Morocco, which is not a Middle East country but is the birth country of Moussa Oukabir? XavierItzm (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Middle Eastern and North American countries more significant here than South American, African, Asian or Oceanian ones? Historically and geographically Spain has more in common with North Africa than it does with Eastern Europe, historically it has more connection with Latin America than Canada or Scandinavia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nobody will remember this attack in five years. This is very useless information.Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge There is no encyclopedic value to repeatedly quoting "We condemn the attack and have condolences for the victims". These are repetitive and meaningless and can and should be summarized. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge The reactions should be noted, but the attack has not yet been significant enough to warrant a whole article. Alex (Talk) 21:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This stodge is as predictable as the sunrise. After every attack, it's the same old "The Poohbah of Foobar sends condolences and condemns violence", accompanied by little flaggy flags. And the inevitable result will be "no consensus". At least it's all kept in a back room where nobody ever takes any notice again. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy about the back room arrangement, why not just aim for keep instead of no consensus? Principle? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: I do not think that was the point of his argument. WWGB is saying the quotes are predictable and routine -- underserving of this much notice -- but is thankful that at least they are not on the main article. His (accurate) description of this article also leads me to believe he does not view this as an encyclopedic contribution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they're not on the main article because they're here. The editors who've busied themselves here the past few days haven't obstructed the editors there, and vice versa. Sure, it's not perfect when stodge exists at all, but a perfect Wikipedia is a pipe dream and chasing pipe dreams causes needless suffering. The peaceful compromise WWGB (appears to) tolerate is obtainable with a Keep or No Consensus result, while Delete means unencylopedic content where people would take notice again. Why risk losing his second choice to state his first choice? Is he that sure of the inevitable that it's not a risk at all? If so, doesn't that certainty make it a keep vote in spirit? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been here long enough to KNOW it's going to be no consensus. This is just my little vent on something I personally abhor in Wikipedia! Although I concede the little flaggy pages survive, that doesn't mean I have to like them. It's like hating a kiss from your moustachioed auntie, but you're glad it only happens at Christmas. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shit like this is not needed just like that kiss from your moustachioed auntie. But her big ass titties are another story. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the editor put a lot of effort into creating this page. It is true that some reactions are predicable but it is interesting to see reactions of Arab/Muslim majority countries like Iran. I wish there was a reaction page to every major attack worldwide. For example, the Canadians reacted very strongly to the Paris attacks but seem to completely ignore terror attack in India/Pakistan...Many Arab countries side with the Palestinians following attacks that they do. A reaction page would help compare reactions to similar attacks in different parts of the world. Scorpions13256, as someone who experienced terrorism, I can tell you that people living in the region of the attack will remember everyday for the rest of their lives and for those who don't live in the region or haven't been born yet....there will be books, articles, history books and wikipedia pages. What should we write in these pages for someone learning about this attack 20 years from now? --Jane955 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jane955 putting "a lot of effort" into an unencyclopedic quote farm is not a reason to keep this "article" (I call it that loosely). Please direct us to a policy instead of your personal opinion. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- TheGracefulSlick I am sure you read what I wrote. The argument is that the reactions are predictable. I responded to that as well.--Jane955 (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How will someone 20 years from now learn anything from an indiscriminate list of formulaic quotations? The prose in the main article contains everything that is encyclopaedic about the reactions of people to this event. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Barcelona attack as it is normal for reactions to trail events like this. PabloTheMenace (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RUSH. This article had been in existence for less than 24 hours before it was nominated for deletion which leaves little time for events to develop and editors globally to lend a hand here. There is also WP:RAPID to consider as again little time was given for the article's improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we remove all the quotes from this article, which add exactly nothing encyclopaedic, then remove the routine reactions that tell us nothing, we're left with a sub-stub that duplicates the material in the main article. The multitude of other reactions too articles, that have had months and years to develop, are almost without exception no more encyclopaedic than they were after 48 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with your perspective is that you are looking at this as a WP:PROBLEM. The quotes can be summed up, and the article can be expanded to include more reactions in prose form. Was there any political fallout? What were the reactions from the city? Which groups had a notable impact in the after events? There are ways the article can be expanded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is possible to write reliably sourced encyclopaedic prose about those things (and I have my doubts about some of them) then you can do so on the main article without need for 200 quotes that say nothing, indeed nothing in this "article" will help you do so, so WP:TNT would apply in that situation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Immigrant to Barcelona here. One of my local friends was ranting at me the day before about the 1987 ETA bombing of the Hipercor on the Avinguda Meridiana, so that's clearly neither true nor helpful to the general discussion. --TwoWholeWorms (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What has that got to do with this nomination? Your anecdote seems to be a weak reason to have the encyclopaedia article about the 1987 bombing (which afaik nobody is questioning) and, at a pinch, a reason not to delete the encyclopaedia article about the attack itself, but completely irrelevant to keeping (or deleting) the collection of predictable, formulaic quotes nominated here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that the 1987 Hipercor bombing article says, "There was almost universal condemnation of the attack" (with one citation), instead of linking to a separate article where the leaders of 50 or so different countries, plus a few football clubs and actors, are quoted as condemning the attack and expressing sympathy for the victims. I am not convinced that the practice of having a separate article containing condemnations of an attack and expressions of sympathy represents an improvement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of the 'realists' above, such as 'Inedible", (ie anything except merge this drivel with the main page). It's worthless, but people feel cheated if they don't get a 'reactions' page, and if their country isn't represented on it, even though most of these reactions are wholly formulaic. Sensible arguments can be pragmatically rather than policy based. Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You admit it's worthless drivel, but still want to keep it? Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for drivel, and the best way to get that message across is to routinely delete it. Maybe you should change your !vote to delete. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Saw this article referenced at the talk page of Wikipedia:NOT where there is a discussion underway on a policy change that would impact on and perhaps eliminate articles of this kind. While I oppose that policy change I do believe that this article is superfluous and should be merged into the main article on the attack. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging means moving all the rubbish from this "article" into the main article; is that what you really want? The main article already has a brief summary of the reactions worth mentioning, so the appropriate action would be delete. It's not too late to change your !vote. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not necessarily all, as that would be undue emphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as nonencyclopedic. Basically most of the reactions is condemnation, that's all we have to say. Any constructive or unusual (but notable) reactions may be easily merged in the main article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2017 Barcelona attack and use the article as a Redirect. This article is a mess and is poorly organized and most of its sources are in Spanish. It should be merged into the main article. It is certainly well sourced overall, but this is the English Wikipedia not the Spanish Wikipedia, so many of its sources are unverifiable unless you are a fluent speaker of Spanish. It's inclusion of twitter posts and other questionable content needs review and vetting. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with no merge) as an arbitrary collection of cherry-picked, primary-sourced comments - it is pure original research. -- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf and whatever the outcome, do not merge. WP:ROUTINE WP:NOTNEWS. No such user (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Combining these two properly referenced articles will clutter the article about the event. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is to delete the reactions article and everything in it, not to move all that rubbish into the main page. Delete it and its contents, get rid of it completely. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - IMHO, the article is still suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? What is encyclopaedic about an indiscriminate collection of routine quotations? Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - IMHO, it is better to have this many quotations in a separate article than to have them in all cluttering up the main article. We shall allow consensus to determine whether or not this article remains. I have been told that there has been a large amount of discussion about whether large scale articles about reactions to a particular incident should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly, this many quotations are just clutter and we don't need clutter either in the main article or in a standalone article - collections of quotes belong on Wikiquote (that's the entire point of that project). Reliably sourced encyclopaedic prose about the reactions to a major event should start off as a section on the main article and remain there unless and until there is sufficient reliably sourced encyclopaedic prose to split the article. A small number of quotes which relate directly to this sourced encyclopaedic prose are fine, but an indiscriminate list of quotes is neither prose nor encyclopaedic - hence Wikiquote is a separate project not part of the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 25 August 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. by User:Billinghurst per WP:G2. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curved ceiling[edit]

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

Google search doesn't turn up a specific place in Iran with this name in English. With no references, unverifiable. May need renaming to a Farsi place name with proper references. As it is, no encyclopedic value and no substantive content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject cannot be confirmed in any sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hadn't seen the discussion. Found and deleted as part of a crosswiki spam response. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 18 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vann Chow[edit]

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

I looked and looked, but I could only find one article about this person in a possibly reliable source. This makes the author fail our general notability guidelines. This is in addition to the fact that they have not won "significant critical attention" (the award doesn't even have an article), thus making the author fail our criteria for the notability of authors. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the official page of 2016 Wattys award winners lists over one hundred winners, including ten alone in the category in which Vann Chow's story "won". I don't mean to take away from her achievement, but the awards seem to be geared more towards increasing Wattpad's brand recognition than elevating the works of authors. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete. I was also unable to find coverage of Vann Chow in reliable sources, and additionally was unable to find independent reviews of her two most prominent works, Shanghai Nobody and The White Man and the Pachinko Girl. As even the author's official site has no review blurbs from outlets more distinguished than blogs, I doubt any higher-profile reviews exist. She seems to be off to a good start and may pass GNG and/or NAUTHOR in a year or two. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I would be very hesitant to delete this page just yet. As mentioned, there are references for Vann Chow in reliable sources and I will try to improve the existing article, which I personally think we should keep. HelgaStick (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HelgaStick: If you have good sources on this person then please list them here on the AfD page. Simply alluding to their existence isn't enough to make your vote count. -- intgr [talk] 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have started an SPI about HelgaStick's !vote above. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Socking was confirmed. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also unable to find substantial independent coverage as required to meet WP:NAUTHOR, only brief mentions in dubious sources: [14] [15]. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 18 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CandyRat Records[edit]

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

Only refs here are to Allrecords, YouTube, and the company's own website. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, MySpace (MySpace!), Spotify, Vimeo, and various concert announcements and ticket events, but I didn't find non-trivial discussion of the actual record label in any independent reliable secondary published sources. Does not meet WP:ORG, and is being used as implied evidence of notability in the articles of some of its clients. KDS4444 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CandyRat looks like it may meet WP:MUSIC bullet 5's definition of "one of the more important indie labels" - it has of late become the label home of a number of noteworthy fingerstyle guitar talents (Andy McKee, Matthew Santos, Don Ross (guitarist), Antoine Dufour, and others). There's at least a little independent coverage ([16]). Chubbles (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Chubbles. Comment:, Andy McKee isn't with CandyRandy anymore. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Chubbles is misquoting WP:MUSIC which does not apply to companies/organizations but to bands and the full text (which is to determine if a band is notable) is Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. Notability is not inherited - signing notable musicians does not make the label noteworthy. The little independent coverage at wpr.org is a mere mention-in-passing and provides no information or data about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a longstanding fissure between those who believe record labels should be treated like businesses (and thus WP:CORP only) or producers of musical culture (and thus WP:MUSIC as a starting point) for purposes of notability. To my mind, it makes as little sense to judge a record label's prominence by organizational guidelines as it would to judge a band's prominence that way. Bands are organizations (businesses, no less!), but we do not judge their notability by WP:CORP. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the "fissure" but I'm on the side that treats companies under WP:CORP and bands under WP:MUSIC. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This LiveMint article's subject is the company/music label: Flying fingers: CANdYRAT Records. StrayBolt (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. One more like this and I will change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE if nothing else. Article no mere unhelpful stub, but has information useful to music researchers/historians. Number of notable artists signed to band indicates that these types would seek information about the record label. Length of history and number of youtube subscribers also indicate a topic of interest that is significantly more far-reaching than the founder and his mother. I have long agreed with Chubbles that CORP is not a good fit for record labels. If signing notable musicians does not make a record label notable, then what possibly could? This is different from inheriting notability, because it demonstrates that the record label has made impact upon musical culture. The article contains verifiable information on a topic of some interest, so Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article included. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeatu Obianwu[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Apocheir (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable musician. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete subject of article is so non-notable it appears as though subject of article is a hoax.Celestina007 (talk to me) 15:10, 23 August 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.