Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 August	26 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor F. Brown[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NFOOTY, mostly because I cannot verify any of the claims but also because she appears to have only played for non-league teams and youth squads. I know this because I've been working fruitlessly for the last half-hour on the draft version (I did not realize this article existed) and am having some difficulty. It also doesn't help that "Taylor Brown" is a rather generic name. Recommend deleting this and letting the Draft be worked on until some proper claims of significance (and some proper sourcing!) can be achieved. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However much I want more and better coverage of women football, per policy I have to !vote delete per nom. -- KTC (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a feminist who is personally against the Notability criteria I feel your pain. Obviously, as the Notability criteria unfortunately still stands, there's not much we can do about it right now.Taraella (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may meet WP:GNG in the future and article can be re-instated and expanded. Right now, appears to be WP:TOOSOON. WP:NFOOTY only includes two women's leagues last I checked so is really not relevant. Hmlarson (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be relevant, but I wanted to point out that the "quick-pass" terms of NFOOTY were not met. If all of the rhetoric given in the references bears fruit over the next few years, I highly suspect the draft will be able to pass GNG. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and above. ClubOranje^T 05:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 29 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) 01:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecogen[edit]

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

Probably fails WP:N and is therefore advertising/promo rather than useful article. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail as PRIMARY or fail WP:CORPDEPTH. No indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of corporate notability. No coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 15:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nope, not an encyclopedia article yet. Rhadow (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Many of the sources linked are 404 or otherwise don't link to any information about the band. Remaining sources are record labels, social media, etc. and do not provide evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. No indication of reliable sources in searches, in part because most results refer to an identically-named wedding/event band from Boise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth coverage found in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 03:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is my first edit, but I don't think this group is notable. They exist, but they don't seem to have achieved much. The sources given don't seem to really talk about them and sometimes they don't even seem to be mentioned.Sandals1 (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of road interchanges in the United States[edit]

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

On one level I hate to have to nominate this, but when it comes down to it, this is pretty much indiscriminate as it stands. There are probably several thousand of these, at least, if not ten thousand or more, the vast majority of which will never have an article. It's reasonable to have a list of interchanges in an article on a highway, but lumping everything in one big list is just too much. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be more than the ten thousand road intersections in the US that the nominator posits, but no worry! This is a list of NOTABLE road intersections. Lists are typically of notable entities. The existence of this list does not create an assumption of notability for every instance of one road intersecting another. Edison (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is limited to bluelinked articles about notable interchanges, it is a legitimate navigational list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as it's contained to major American interchanges and not 1st and Heath in Arthur, Nebraska, we should be good with keeping this as an article. Limited criteria of the major transport junctions in the US is sound. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment It does not say it is a list of notable interchanges. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The title can be changed to List of notable road interchanges in the United States very easily. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --do ncr am 03:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

1. See guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which points out that lists and categories are complementary. A list can include pictures and references and text and redlinks which cannot be conveyed by a category. For this topic, the list-article can include coordinates of the road interchanges which can be viewed on a {{GeoGroup}}-linked Google map. This list was started by populating it from the corresponding category. It already is proving valuable as it allows readers to find their way to the major intersections (pretty much the ones most famous for congestion) in each state, which was not possible before, because this is now organized by state. I think whoever created it did a great job to start! :)

2. It is indeed a list of notable interchanges. We don't need to say "notable" in the title or even in the lede, although it was put into the lede. Most lists do not. Notability can be defined differently, according to a consensus of editors at the Talk page of the list, but to start the list-item-notability standard was defined = "topic is Wikipedia-notable as proven by an article existing". Certainly when more editors see the list and realize it is missing a major interchange that is very notable for its congestion or otherwise, they can add them as redlinks, if they provide sources establishing importance/notability. I have worked on lots of list articles and this usually works fine.

Thanks Mangoe for being civil and pleasant about this, including by your nice note to my talk page, even though you nominated it for deletion. --do ncr am 03:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Further, interchanges are IMPORTANT. They can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. When one is not functioning smoothly, it costs thousands of persons-years per day of wasted time, easily millions of person-years in a year. These are huge deals, far more important than your average historic site listed on the National Register, say, which I and others have listed out in county-level list-articles. When an interchange is blocked, it is a catastrophe. These are important public resources, major public works, worth celebrating/honoring/knowing about. :) --do ncr am 03:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A list of highway interchanges is not inherently a bad idea. But there are so many interchanges in the US, maintaining this list in a way that constrains its scope to "notable" interchanges would be a hard task. Restricting to "notable" interchanges would basically amount to a dump of the corresponding category, which I believe lacks the context and sense of commonality needed for a good list. If the list is kept, I think it would need new criteria for inclusion, rooted in third-party media coverage and possibly structural (like unique or otherwise noteworthy construction) and traffic attributes. It should correspond well to the category and its pages, but not just be a list of links to our (existing) articles on American interchanges. -happy 5214 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with Happy5214. How exactly do we define inclusion on this page? I don't have an answer for that. –Fredddie ™ 11:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Responding to User:Happy5214 and User:Freddie, your concern that there should be coverage of the more important items in Wikipedia (wanting "context and sense of commonality" rather than a random collection), is a good reason why we want to have the list-article. The category alone is just a random collection without any overall perspective. The list-article can cover sources which list identify the important interchanges, including redlink ones which need articles, guiding development. E.g. this AARoads.Com discussion mentions the first stack interchange in the U.S.--the 101-110 interchange in Los Angeles, built during 1949-1953-- and lists a number more that should be covered. It would be silly to remove the list-article. "Weak Keep" is meant to express your disapproval for the current state of the article perhaps, in a patronizing way? As if you are punishing a child? I actually see no valid reason for you to be "weak" in your support for the page; it is simply a good thing to have the list-article. --doncram 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Not that at all. There has to be some standard for inclusion on the page. There isn't currently, so I could add every interchange from Interstate 29 in Iowa and it would be fine and good. –Fredddie ™ 17:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote should be read as "I don't have an issue with such a list existing, but I have serious doubts it can be done in a way that satisfies existing policies and guidelines on lists." My original vote was "neutral", so be happy that I'm siding with you. I know I'd prefer "weak keep" to "neutral" if I were in your position. I agree with Fredddie in his concurrence with my insistence on a standard for inclusion. It should be clear that indiscriminate collections of article links are bad, and I think that's the basis of your argument for a real list instead of just the category. But you need to come up with a reason these interchanges should be included in the list, using reliable sources and not simply a personally curated set. And, no, AARoads can't be cited in this list since it's not considered a reliable source here. -happy 5214 23:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I could see a list of notable interchanges, but not this. As it is, the article has some significant flaws: editorializing about Los Angeles interchanges, limiting this to stack interchanges, etc. --Rs chen 7754 05:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of notable interchanges. Otherwise what you have are editing concerns, not governing for an AFD. About Los Angeles, I was trying to work in some context for that section, based on a source, and I agree my writing was awkward, feel free to change. About it being stack interchanges only, it must have been some other editor adding that sentence, which is inconsistent with the current title of the article and a bit inconsistent with the contents, because there are a couple non-stack entries listed. I would think the first cloverleaf interchange in the U.S. would be notable and should be included, for example. Your participation at the Talk page and in editing the article would be welcome. --do ncr am 19:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:SPORTS and WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cline[edit]

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

Master's cyclist with results that do not satisfy WP:NCYC or broader notability guidelines (WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG). No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in either the sources given or in searches. Available coverage is either simple race results or passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have read all the pertinent information and this is my take on it.

1) Being a CAT1/2 racer at this level of competition already qualifies as being notable. Being a master is irrelevant when racing professional fields. 2) The availability of references in cycling, depending on the type of racing being done, is set in the references provided. Some tracks, because of organization issues, are sketchy with results making validation difficult. 3) Being world ranked for two years straight is also notable as defined by Wikipedia. Actually, every person on that rank list is notable. To reach that achievement and hold it places you among the best in the world. 4) Two national championships, a world ranking and a state championship, while simple results, are what validates racers and their accomplishments. Random searches of any racer from any of the organizations mentioned would still result in less than significant coverage by most of the racers.

This: competed in a UCI World Tour; competed in a Grand Tour or Monument; competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships).

This very limiting, but even so, participating in many UCI 1/2 events and beating a nation in any race to get a world ranking would, while not wikipedia notable, is notable nonetheless.

I also reviewed (1) multiple instances of significant coverage, (2) in independent sources, which are (3) reliable. Significant coverage in racing is sketchy sometimes we, as racers, depend on UCI and USAC as the reliable sources for upgrades and recognition.

Newspaper articles and the like dont necessarily cover all the participants of race especially those who participate, gain UCI points and a world rank but don't actually win the race.

These are my arguments. I believe that the 597 people I am ranked with in 2016 are also notable as well. Given the age difference and a ranking of 508, with 40 points beating Poland in 2016, out of 597 is completely notable.

Thank you for your time. Mickeywrangle (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)— Mickeywrangle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, this is interesting. I have read all the mumbo jumbo and I have to say that the policies seem to be more of an issue than this article.

Frankly, some unknown bike racer over twice the age pretty much of everyone on that UCI list is pretty impressive. While I get what Wikipedia is doing here to keep standards high and all but I think the idea of notability is really bordering on elitist. I am not trying to be insulting or anything but just hear me out.

Standards are fine and all but only focusing on those individuals who are set in that very small set of criteria (for anything not just cycling)seems a limiting to factor to the whole concept of this site. I find that the more obscure references on Wikipedia round out all the information this site provides. I find it refreshing when this site throws me information I would have never known about except some random person decided to add something here.

But this guy? He is paired up against Hugo Haak and Eric Engler? Frankly, and I am assuming here, he got beat badly, but to represent his country on that level, again, is impressive.

Also, and according to your web page, "Pre Professional cyclists to have raced at the top level races are considered notable..." which it clearly looks like this guy did at least a couple times. And not to distract...Eric Engler's wiki page only says he participated in the 2015 World Track Championships. There is literally only a start list on there about his history and this article is robust with facts about his roll and status on the world cycling stage. So a start list is ok? But actual results aren't?

Anyway, that is my two cents for what its worth...seems like a little double standard here.

Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward1984u (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Edward1984u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This comment is longish so as to provide some policy information for new users. "Notable" has a slightly different meaning on Wikipedia than it normally does in English discourse. The meaning of the term on Wikipedia is very specific: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article emphasis in original. No evidence has yet been presented that these three criteria are satisfied by any of the coverage, what little there is, of John Cline. The information presented above is unsourced and therefore does not comply with the policy on verifiability -- a core content policy. Verifiability of information is also mandatory for biographies of living persons. Even presuming the accuracy of that information, many of the claims are not indicative of notability under our policies and guidelines. For example, being a UCI Cat 1 or 2 cyclist is not evidence of notability, as there are literally thousands of such racers. Being UCI ranked 561st out of 626 track riders is also, absent other sourcing, not a recognized criterion for notability. Protesting that those criteria are "very limiting" misses the point. The community has decided through consensus that the criteria should be limiting. The remainder of this is essentially special pleading that the article should remain just because the author is impressed by the subject. If there is any sourcing that can be provided to establish compliance, then the situation of course changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete without prejudice The notability rules for amateur athletes are a tad fuzzy - but the current sourcing appears insufficient to put this one across the finish line. That said, it is entirely possible that the person does meet the guidelines for amateur notability, just that the current sourcing is insufficient. We have had quite non-notable athletes survive AfD, including any athlete who has been a member of any Olympic team in any sport at all, even if they were abject failures in sport <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for cyclists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 29 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) 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alert-Condition:Red[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Shameless promotion. Entry into a film festival is not the same as "international acclaim." The festival starts today. The article is a put-up to help its chances. Rhadow (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFILM Spiderone 12:01, 28 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. Redirecting to Nike, Inc. was suggested, but failed to gain consensus, so I'm not going to do that. If somebody wants to be WP:BOLD and create the redirect on their own, that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lunarlon[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to an appropriate article if there is one. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nike, Inc. unless we can find reliable independent sourcing to show the notability. Most of what I have found is simply Company PR and marketing, and various repetitions of that, so not independent. Note that the article author (and sole contributor) has blanked this article (and others) multiple times but I don't think this is a G7 since it does not appear to be in good faith. Meters (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, does not appear to have any references to establish notability. I disagree with a redirect to Nike since I cannot see any reason why this substance is notable in the first place. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 28 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. The editor who created the page wanted to delete it under CSD G7, but I'm going to go ahead and say it wouldn't survive the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YEEZY Wave Runner 700[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This product does not appear to be separately notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo Buttafuoco[edit]

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

No reason for her to have her own article. She is notable for a single event, that is, being the victim of a crime. The references are all centered around her husband. She apparently wrote a book about being a victim of the crime as well, but that does not create notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She wrote a book. She's being receiving coverage for the past 25 years - including her decision to stay with her husband. She's been the subject of coverage - e.g. - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. So yes - she's risen to the limelight for being a victim. But she didn't fade away - she's stayed in the limelight and continued generating coverage of her life - meeting WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that seems like tabloid coverage. But my main issue is 'why' does she need her own article when it could more easily and sensibly be covered in a single article? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloidy perhaps, though cbs and abc would perhaps dispute that, still establishes notability. She has been covered as a subject in her post victim life.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirecting to the other two subjects in the case would be the wrong direction in this case; agreed per Icewhiz that she has established her own notability. Unfortunately it's natural that this is going to contain tabloid coverage by design. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- She is more than just a victim; WP:1EVENT does not apply. But it would be useful to describe more her writing career in the lead.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more rewriting, but as the other editors mentioned, she is notable for more than just the incident. I've added more sources, including reviews of her book. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it pretty unpractical to describe her skills as an author in the article of her husband. She's notable for her reactions on that crime, and her actions shouldn't be explained in the biography of another person. Also, I had reverted the redirect of the nominator a few days ago because he completely left out what she's done to restore her face etc. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She has established her notability, maybe a little bit more of her writing career should be covered in the article.--ClrView (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's lots of coverage. Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. She was infamous, and is still infamous. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability doesn't expire. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though she has been subject of "passing mention" in a lot of sources, in a lot of other sources she has received significant coverage. Being the gunshot victim, and author excludes her from one event; even if we consider the motivational speaker as non notable/trivial. As another editor stated above, she has been receiving coverage since almost 25 years (for some reason or another). Also, she is attractive, and has a funny last name lol (just kidding). —usernamekiran(talk) 20:31, 31 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 keep. No argument or support for deletion presented. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital currencies[edit]

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

From Talk:Digital_currency#Merger_with_List_of_digital_currencies "The List of digital currencies article has an issue with WP:NPOV. It list several non-cryptocurrencies that don't look important." I (definitely) couldn't have said it better myself. Nickps (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 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 redirect to Alexander Mackenzie (explorer)#Legacy. Selective merge from history possible. Sandstein 11:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Alexander Mackenzie Canada Sea-to-Sea Bicentennial Expeditions[edit]

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

Doubt about notability The Banner talk 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep websites exist search his name×Jacob20162016 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a website not necessarily means that the subject is notable. The Banner talk 15:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus WP:NOTINHERITED applies. McKenzie is notable, the expeditions less so. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of sources or evidence of notability. I see one book result and some hints that there was coverage at one point or another, but nothing sufficient to sway me. Also, bloody hell that title is a mouthful. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexander Mackenzie (explorer)#Legacy, and remove the link from Template:Canoeing and kayaking: There's a bit more if you search for "Alexander McKenzie" "bicentennial", but not much more. I've added a small para to the proposed target, but at least a couple of sourced paragraphs would be possible as part of a larger section on the bicentennial as a whole (Not volunteering, though), which appears to have a level of notability including the creation of the Alexander Mackenzie Trail in its leadup, government spending, issues of Canadian nationalism and First Nations protest, the release of a coin by the Royal Canadian Mint, and the expedition. Indications are there'd be further offline RS coverage given launches and welcomes. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Alexander Mackenzie (explorer)#Legacy per Hydronium Hydroxide. The expeditions are worth describing in a paragraph or so in the Mackenzie article, but don't warrant the excessive detail of the current article. (Please note the spelling of the disambiguated title.) -Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed -- thanks. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:45, 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. No action on the suggested block; take that to WP:SPI if you want to pursue it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Georgia)[edit]

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

Hoax, no references that indicate notability. --Bankster (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Another likely contrib of a sock of Sasha Hillenburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who kept trying to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network (Ukraine) months before. Suggest a duck block of Heart2017 and a speedying of this as WP:CRYSTAL with a broken ball. Nate • (chatter) 20:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as poster above. I also think that it is unfair that other countries don't get to keep their versions of Cartoon Network while this one does. Take it down!Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:26, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilistic Innovation Theory[edit]

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

This is one of the clearest cases of using Wikipedia for original research that I have seen. This appears to be almost entirely sourced to Callaghan as a primary source. No evidence of other reliable sources commenting on this theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G8, G11, and A7. 216.235.231.28 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- and I suspect written by the selfsame Callahan Rhadow (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a glance at the article's history will indeed show. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article could be used as a canonical example of WP:NOT#OR. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW as OR. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - not alot more to be said really. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deb's Daughter[edit]

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

Article about artist with passing mention in external internet sites with little indication of notability in article. PROD was reverted. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA-created PROMO, perhaps vanity page, web sources, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 22:21, 30 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) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Epstein[edit]

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

Former Local TV meteorologist. Sources do not show in-depth independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST or WP:NPROF either. Created by SPA MB 14:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ seems to have quite a presence as both meteorologist and gardening expert in New England. I added some sources, including a profile and a combo feature/profile in a Boston area weekly, The Jewish Advocate. Dave Epstein is an awfully common name, I suspect that more sourcing is available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: E.M.Gregory's entirely speculative claim notwithstanding, no notability criteria on Wikipedia accords notability for "quite a presence." They do for meeting the GNG, and while the Jewish Advocate barely clears the bar as a reliable source, it is but one source, not the multiple sources the GNG requires. Ravenswing 23:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic papers like The Jewish Advocate are as reliable as other newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while you and I differ about notability here, my opinion was not "speculative," it was based on sources, including WP:SIGCOV in 2 separate articles in The Jewish Advocate and a prize Epstein won for his reporting in the Portland Press-Herald. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS that are secondary (he has worked for WBUR, the Boston Globe the Portland Press Herald and a number of the other regional media. After finding some solid secondary sources, and an unusual enthusiasm for him as a journalist in other sections of the papers and radio stations he works for - apparently doing an unusually sophisticated sort of analysis of weather and gardening that suits the New England intelligentsia, I thought that other readers would bring sufficient sources. Flag me to return if someone does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 29 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 Vidyavihar. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kirol[edit]

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

Was deprodded with a very nice message on my talk page, but no rationale for notability. 2 primary sources were added. The church definitely exists, but with no indication of notability. Searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969: The article is just stub and needs to be updated I have added 8 more sources to the article in external so it may be useful in expanding the article. There are many in the list and I don't think it fails notability Hope this gets resolved soon --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiven2240 - The issue is the sources are either primary (like stuff from the diocese, etc.), unreliable (like wordpress), or are simply trivial mentions (like the India Times piece). I searched and could find no in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:RS regarding reliable sourcing, and WP:GNG, regarding what constitutes notability. Be more than happy to change my mind if sourcing can be found. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: @Peterkingiron: The external links I have added also have Government sources to it. Aren't Government sources reliable?. Whereas I have mentioned the article is still in it's creation stub form it may be extended by an another editors by the help of my recent souces added to them. Atleast this article has some notability then the following articles which don't have the so called reliable source and yet exists in mainspace.

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०, To be kept, what an article needs is material about the Church found in reliable books and news publications, or, sometimes in academic sources, with in-depth discussions of things like the role of the church in a particular community, notable activities that take place at the church (such as a saint's day festival, or a concert of sacred music that attracts attention in WP:RS outside the local area. Or, sometimes, a church is notable because of a notable priest, or an event (such as the baptism or wedding of a person who was beatified,) but in all events, we need coverage in WP:RS to establish notability, not in local websites and routine government reports. Some of the church you have listed need better sources or they are unlikely to be kept if brought to the attention of editors here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- It is always difficult to tell when one just has a stub, but this looks like a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vidyavihar. Not enough detail in sources to support separate article at the moment.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Vidyavihar#Kirol Village wehre text on this Church as the center of a village/neighborhood community already exists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed vote) as others have suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 30 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) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRMNEXT[edit]

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Plenty of "awards", but none are notable. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 12:02, 28 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. Although this does appear to be a slam-dunk "Keep", many of the Keep rationales are very flimsy and don't really address anything approaching a Wikipedia policy, so I'm closing this as N/C. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzales–Rosewall rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NSports, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. There is nothing here to indicate that these players had a unique, independently notable rivalry. They were merely competitors. T v x1 13:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the greatest players who ever lived, who played each other all over the world well over a hundred times over a 15-year period, and YOU say that's not a notable rivalry? Geez. If not, then why not nominate all the OTHER tennis rivalries for deletion also. I will certainly opposite this proposal as vigorously as I can! Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the article. The only prose is the lead sentence. Save for that it's rather indiscriminate. Even though the players are obviously notable, there is no evidence here that their rivalry is independently notable. Number of encounters means nothing in itself. Bear in mind that they spent a lot of their joint careers on the dedicated pro tour which had a limited number of players in comparison to the amateur tour. That resulted in elevated amount of encounters between the limited number of players that did play on the pro tour. Everything that can be mentioned here can also be stated on their own articles.T v x1 15:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU

^(T) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that this is not a notable rivalry is simply that -- your OPINION. I suggest that you go to the actual LIST of tennis rivalries, and read the introduction to that list. Here is what it says:

In tennis history there have been a number of famous rivalries. This is a list of some of the greatest rivalries.[10][11][12][13]

For the purpose of this article only, the criteria for inclusion are (all must be met):

Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 3 or better, and one of them must have reached No. 1.
The players must have met multiple times in semi-finals or finals of a Grand Slam tournament (in pre-Open era also, Pro Slam tournament and WCCC, WHCC counts).
They must have at least a total of 12 career meetings in main tour matches.

Gonzales and Rosewall meet all the criteria of that list. Therefore it is included along with all of the other rivalries shown. You cannot take this one out without taking out maybe a dozen others. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As may be, but Mr. Peirce makes a few key errors. First off, the creator/maintainers of the List of tennis rivalries article have no authority or power to create Wikipedia notability guidelines. For another, it's settled policy that the criteria for inclusion in a list is much lower than the level of notability necessary to sustain a standalone article. For a third, the existence of similar articles (that likewise don't qualify for notability) doesn't immunize this one from having to comply with notability guidelines. For a fourth, not only are sports rivalries not inherently notable, they're explicitly not notable, as per WP:NRIVALRY, which holds: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline."
But it's alright, because this article can easily be saved: just come up with reliable sources providing significant coverage to this rivalry, as the GNG enjoins. Barring that, I don't see it. Ravenswing 17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That list is rather suspect, with its arbitrary criteria. It should be based on reliable sources anointing the rivalries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is confusion here between apples and oranges. Before 1968 and Open Tennis, the professional tennis world was VERY different. The pros, who were the world's best players, were essentially outcasts. The New York Times, for example, did not have thousands of words per week written about the rivalry between the touring pros Vines and Perry and Vines and Budge, the way they do today with story after story about Joker vs. Fed, vs. Murray, vs. whoever else. It's hard to go back 80 years and find the sort of sourced reference you apparently want. Are you seriously trying to say that Vines-Tilden, Vines-Perry, Vines-Budge, Riggs-Budge were NOT rivalries? That they were pro-rassling fake matches? I think you need to get some perspective on this whole business and not judge it from the vantage point of 2017 in which you can spent 10 seconds Googling and find a thousand references to any present-day rivalry you care to search for.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, but here's the rub: notability on Wikipedia is not determined by how important you are or how skilled you might be. It's determined by whether the world's heard of you or not. The strictures of WP:V, and indeed of all notability criteria, hinge on significant coverage in reliable sources. Tennis isn't the only sport where amateurs at one time received a great deal more attention and acclaim than the pros; indeed, the only North American sport I can think of offhand where they didn't is baseball. The perspective you need to gain here is that the answer to "but there wasn't press coverage for X back then!" isn't that Wikipedia policies and guidelines cease to apply. It's that subjects that did not receive press coverage do not qualify for Wikipedia articles. Ravenswing 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not claiming that this rivalry did not exist. I'm questioning that it was notable enough to merit a dedicated article. At present I can see no evidence that it did. Everything that is mentioned in this article can easily been incorporated in the players' articles (if it isn't there already).T v x1 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there would be no objection if the entire table of results for Gorgo and Ken were copied into their two respective articles? I myself would RATHER see them THERE than in this separate article that can be difficult to find. And, of course, I can copy the whole Rivalry article, and all its sub-articles over to Citizendium, but the exposure would be a lot less. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of important statistics in athletes' articles are common enough, although I'd question whether head-to-head rivalry statistics were that important as such things went. What you choose to copy over to some other wiki is, of course, between you and that wiki's own rules. Ravenswing 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is a proliferation of rivalry articles in the modern era, especially those that involve active players. Certainly, you can't have new pages popping up for any two players that have a following. But deleting a longstanding existing article like this one, which has been maintained for years, seems like a draconian action. It would make perfect sense to prevent new articles on pre-Open Era rivalries; you've got articles on rivalries like Federer-Roddick and I guess the equivalent of the pre-Open Era would be something like Gonzalez-Buchholz. By all means prevent those from popping up. But why take the nuclear option on existing articles? Krosero (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment 100%. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because every article on Wikipedia is subject to the appropriate notability criteria, and failing them, are liable for deletion; that's the whole point of AfD. Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot, or exempt it from following notability guidelines. Ravenswing 14:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has been on Wikipedia for a long time and nobody has paid attention to it, and perhaps it was just created by a minor fan base for frivolous reasons, then it really is just clutter. But this article is not like that and I fail to see where exactly its mere existence is causing harm, or, to put it in less dramatic terms, how it is a negative. The article is read by readers regularly I presume (or at least I see no sign that it is not) and it's been continually maintained. When I go to it to draw on information or to study it, I regularly link from it to other articles on Wikipedia (player bios); presumably other readers do so as well. I can't see how its mere existence will encourage others to create frivolous modern-day rivalry pages; this article, on its face, to every observer, is not about any minor player. I don't know specifically who started it years ago but it was surely serious tennis historians. So I'm not clear on what the negative is in keeping it. Taking up too much bandwidth? Krosero (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was started back in July of 2011, six years ago, and was added to by at least half a dozen editors over the next year. Since then it has been continually edited and upgraded by various people, all of them, apparently, notable experts in tennis matters (at least judging from the quality of their edits over the years). I lived in Tahiti for many years, and was a small businessman of sorts. Trying to deal with the government and the entrenched bureaucracy was about my biggest problem. Frustrated people in Tahiti trying to get something, ANYthing done, used to frequently say, including in the pages of the local newspapers: "For every person here trying to DO something, there are TWO people trying to tear it down." That's what this proposal seems like to me. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially what I'm getting at too. I don't deny that there may be a problem with proliferation of unnecessary/trivial articles that are only being created and read by minor fans bases. But to take down something already existing -- if that something is being read and maintained and is regarded as something useful -- seems like something else entirely. Krosero (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when some of the rivalries are among the very greatest players to have ever walked onto the court. Vines, Tilden, Budge, Perry, Riggs, Segura, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver. I would think that we would be trying to add MORE information about these now-obscure, even forgotten, players, rather than trying to REMOVE information about them. As Bill James, the inventor, more or less, of Sabremetrics once wrote: "Unless you adjust for periods and changes in baseball, then you have to come to the conclusion that ALL the best pitchers of all time lived between 1900 and 1920 and that all the best hitters lived in the 1920s and '30s." It's the same here -- ANYONE can go online today and in ten seconds find out a MILLION non-Wikipedia facts about Fed, Nadal, Murray, Joker, etc. etc. To read the comments across the internet of almost any tennis fan under 60 years old, it's as if tennis didn't even EXIST until 1968. And that no one at all before that date had the faintest idea how to play it. The list of rivalries between the old-time players is just one more way of shining light into the darkness. As you so astutely say, a Gonzales-Buchholtz Rivalry doesn't shine much light on it, but a list of their matches would nevertheless be interesting within their INDIVIDUAL articles. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was *Sampras*, not McEnroe who hadn't heard of Gonzales. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, we need to stop the assumptions of bad faith here. Nobody is trying to tear anything down. Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies and each article needs to satisfy them. Per WP:NRivalry, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Despite all the text which has been written here, no evidence has been provided that this rivalry is independently notable. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not a tennis fansite dedicated to righting the great wrong of some tennis players not having gotten as much attention as some think they should have.T v x1 21:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a number of the notable features of this rivalry were stated early on, including having over a hundred encounters -- but that was actually understated. Gonzalez and Rosewall met at least 200 times and I do not know of any other pair of players who met so many times. That goes for Tilden/Nusslein, Vines/Perry, Vines/Tilden, each of which had over 100 meetings but all falling short of this one. And Gonzalez and Rosewall had more meetings at pro majors than any of those earlier rivalries; they also met in two world series; and they met over the course of 13 years which also out-strips those earlier rivalries (only Laver/Rosewall compares in that regard). Rosewall also succeeded Gonzalez as #1 (like Vines/Perry), including a pro major meeting in the '61 French Pro final that was described at the time as a succession. A counter-argument was made above that number of meetings in itself is not notable, because of the structure of the old pro tour -- but that argument only holds weight if you're comparing a rivalry on the old pro tour against a rivalry that took place under different conditions: like comparing Gonzalez/Rosewall against Federer/Nadal. Of course the differing structures of the two tours makes a difference in number of meetings. But compare Gonzalez/Rosewall against other rivalries on the old pro tour, instead. It outstrips all those other earlier rivalries I named in number of meetings overall, in number of meetings at majors, in having one alltime great succeeding another as number one (except Vines/Perry which is similar), and especially in length of time that they remained active rivals (13 years). Krosero (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe some of the above information should be put into the lede paragraph, satisfying one of the "problems". Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not write our own thoughts or synthesis in wikipedia articles. We reflect and cite the sources.T v x1 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just don't see any in-depth coverage from reliable sources that talk about this rivalry. --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why erase a lot of well-documented history? Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fails the guidelines and policies. See also WP:EFFORT.T v x1 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would tend to keep this one as it was a pretty big rivalry in its day. Sure it's tougher to find sources for the pre-open era except for books, but there is nothing special about how we handle today's rivalries. If there are 4 or 5 rivalries today, you can darn well expect that there were 4-5 rivalries 20 years ago, and 4 or 5 rivalries 20 years before that. It was not as intense as the Kramer-Gonzales rivalry or as renowned as the Laver-Rosewall rivalry, but it was pretty big in the late 50's early 60s. there needs to be a little more leeway given to players from the past where the sources are a little harder to find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kramer in his book The Game has a fair amount about Rosewall v. Gorgo. I could easily write a lede paragraph that had info from a documented source, one of the most important figures in the history of tennis, about their rivalry. My question: Is it worth doing? Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I thoroughly agree that some leeway should be given to a rivalry which so clearly was not minor and meets so many of the criteria of an important rivalry. And certainly let's have the Kramer excerpt(s), that is well worth doing. Krosero (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun writing the lede, adding general info first. I will add more stuff from Kramer about the early days of the rivalry in a moment. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the recent changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Hayford Peirce (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Comment You cannot vote twice during an AFD, even if it's relisted.T v x1 10:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't-don't know who's doing the counting, or where. Either I can remove this, or it doesn't have to be counted. Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should simply strike it.T v x1 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a strikethrough on it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Books such as "Muscles: The story of Ken Rosewall, Australia's little master of the courts", "Twenty Years at the Top" and "Der Grösste Meister Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall" are references about Kenneth Robert Rosewall's career. They clearly describe the rivalry between Gonzales (Gonzalez) and Rosewall. It took Rosewall about 4-5 years after turning professional to disloge Gonzales from the world #1 place and though Gonzales retired in October 1961, he came back in 1964 as Gonzalez (with a "z") and resumed his rivalry with Rosewall as described in another book "The Return of a Champion: Pancho Gonzalez' Golden Year 1964". Rosewall was the tennis king between Gonzales and Laver so there were inevitably great rivalries for Rosewall with his predecessor (Gonzales) and his successor (Laver).

Besides, in the list of tennis rivalries there are missing for instance the Segura-Sedgman, Kramer-Segura, Rosewall-Segura (the clashes between the little men but great players), Kramer-Riggs, Budge-Vines, Sedgman-Rosewall, Sedgman-Hoad, Gonzales-Trabert (as much hatred between both players than between Connors and McEnore) and others that I forget at this very moment whereas Laver-Olmedo, Laver-Sedgman or Laver-Stolle have never been great rivalries. In any valuable world pro-amateur rankings, Olmedo has never been better than world #8; Sedgman was clearly declining in 1963 though he was still world #5 or 6 and Laver-Stolle was never a true rivalry, the only year when Stolle was a good player and faced Laver was in 1967. If rivalries should be deleted in Wikipedia the last three could be chosen (but personally I would also keep both of them because they are however interesting). To come back to Gonzales-Rosewall they were not mere competitors : their rivalry was the world #1 place and the turning point probably the 1961 French Pro final when Gonzales gave way to Rosewall. Look at the records and you will see that between May 1964 and July 1965 the tripartite rivalry between Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales is one of the greatest of all time, possibly greater than Borg-McEnroe-Connors. The last three players had not won true majors the same year while in 1964, Laver won the London Indoor Pro (Wembley) and the US Pro (Brookline), Rosewall the French Pro (Paris Coubertin) and Gonzalez the US Pro Indoor (White Plains). These 4 tourneys were the true majors in 1964 (not the Davis Cup or the amateur Slam tourneys). Should I recall the score of the Gonzalez-Rosewall match at White Plains, 5–7, 3–6, 10–8, 11–9, 8–6 then at the French Pro at the Stade de Coubertin in Paris, the match of the tourney was the semi between both players (won by Kenny 4–6, 6–2, 5–7, 7–5, 6–2) ? Buy some monthly tennis magazines of the time and you will see that it was a great rivalry : Tennis de France, World Tennis always talked about their great confrontations, especially that year of 1964. In the summer 1964 both players have been chosen to face each other in the 1964 Trofeo Facis tour (and in 1961 in the Euro Tour). Both players have faced each other in two world pro tours (1957 and 1960) : not many others did that (Tilden-Nüsslein, Vines-Perry, Budge-Riggs, Gonzales-Hoad and if my memory is right, no others).

Your example of great rivalries ("This is a list of some of the greatest rivalries.[14][15][16][17]
") are just examples of rivalries chosen by modern journalists about the open era but not journalists of the ancient times : is there any source coming from Edward Clarkson Potter Jr., Lance Tingay, Arthur Wallis Myers, Linda Timms, William Tilden, Henry Christian Hopman and many others I forget ? Absolutely not. Buy American Lawn Tennis, World Tennis, Tennis de France magazines and then you will find all the sources of the time. Sources by modern journalists who think that tennis is born with Björn Borg are not valid sources but Pastime classifying the British players in the 1890's is THE source of the tennis in those times.

Delete the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry article would be a nonsense. The fact that you don't find sources, I guess by Internet, is irrelevant. In those times, newspapers, magazines and books were the sources and they related of the rivalry between both players (Gonzales and Rosewall).Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the significant number of contemporary reliable sources as pointed out by Carlo Colussi and others. Gap9551 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vast sum of human knowledge built up over millennia, that has been written in newspapers, magazines and books is now living in libraries, archives, museums the fact that all of it has not yet been digitized and is therefore not instantly verifiable is no reason to delete this article and to satisfy digital age sourcing Pat Cash seems to think it was a "Huge Rivalry" here: Http://www.patcash.co.uk/tag/greatest-of-all-time/ --Navops47 (talk) 16:36, 29 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 Open University. Sounds like relocating some information from OpenLearn into Open University is also a good idea, but I'll leave that up to other people to implement. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open2.net[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenLearn which itself requires non-primary sources. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no relevant encyclopedic content and no sources. Regarding a redirect, it's not clear if the target should not be Open University over OpenLearn, because only the content was transferred to OpenLearn, while Open University had more of a role in the site. So better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect (to where)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Online seems to be the main article about the BBC's online activities and a merge or mention there might work, as the site was tied in with several programs broadcast on BBC (even if they were made by Open2/the OU). I added one ref, and there's a few refs in educational texts, but probably not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would suggest redirecting to Open University with merged information from Open Learn as it's own section. Aimeec110 (talk) 23:16, 28 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. Page has been deleted and salted per multiple previous creations under Sachhin Chhabra RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Sachhin Chhabra[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. –barakokula31 (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Definitely not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR; would support speedy delete Spiderone 10:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (CSD A7) and salt this name variant: The tortuous title for this CV is presumably not unconnected to "Sachhin Chhabra" being protected after multiple reposts: [18]. Working in a trade is not inherently of encyclopaedic notability and while a syndicated article is available [19] this person fails WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 11:16, 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 delete. (and replace with dab) Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eldritch[edit]

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

It's a dictionary definition. Counter to the cleanup tag, it looks like it's already been transwikied. If we delete this, we can make way for the disambiguation page to be the primary topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with disambig page. There are two question to be answered affirmatively if the article is to be kept: (1) if eldritch is a distinct concept from anything else similar (the uncanny, Lovecraftian horror, etc) and (2) if it is distinct, whether that distinct concept is notable. As far as I can tell "eldritch" is just a poetic word for weird/strange/uncanny/horrifying that is particularly closely linked with Lovecraftian horror, and hence it's not really a distinct concept. There's almost a case for redirecting to Lovecraftian/Lovecraft, but a stronger case for moving the disambiguation page here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 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. If it were just a matter of WP:N, I'd probably relist at this point. But there's also an assertion that we can't even meet WP:V, which is a much stricter standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casandra Krammer[edit]

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

No apparent notability whatsoever. The only sources are essentially directly from the article's subject; this appears to simply be for publicity. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaese check her web site, if you have any doubts that she is notable as a cover designer. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her website isn't a reliable source. And even if we could use that, it still doesn't establish that she's notable, just that she's designed some book covers. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any way that the subject could meet either the WP:GNG or our notability criteria for creatives. And that's just notability. Worse than notability we don't have a way to verify any of the content. There are not sufficient independent, reliable sources to create an article from. The subject's website can be used for some simple facts, but not as the basis for an article. Mduvekot (talk) 22:04, 27 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) 22:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Jaisa Yaar Kahan[edit]

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

Fails film notability. A before search for independent, reliable sources which give significant coverage turns up with few results (source). DrStrauss talk 16:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM as per nom 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herobed[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial, independent support. References are company websites, blogs, articles that do not mention subject, and press releases. A couple of short articles are references, but not enough to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I'm finding social media profiles, non-notable blogs, and promotional mentions/press releases, but no in-depth coverage to help show that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. gongshow talk 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, especially agree with Gongshow. Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Market and sales of the Nissan Leaf[edit]

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

Inappropriate and unnecessary split. Contains a collection of partially obsolete material (e.g., "Sakes of the Leaf willl begin in the UK in June 2013...) WP is NOT A PRODUCT CATALOG DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ever since I started tagging several of these electric car articles as waaaay too long (12,000 to 15,000 words!) and filled with unencyclopedic street prices, shopper's comparison guides, and other sales information (see WP:NOT, various sections), and asking for GA review on some of these that were recognized as Good Articles before the bloat happened, there have been attempts to save some of this material that has sandbagged these articles. Meaning Chevrolet Volt, Plug-in electric vehicle, Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Tesla, Inc., Tesla Model S and others. The topic of market and sales for the Nissan Leaf belongs in Nissan Leaf, but should be summarized. This country-by-country micro-analysis each date of introduction, the price, who many cars arrived, who bought them... all that should be condensed and presented in a high-level way. A table or two maybe, a line graph showing trends over time. Not 8,594 words on the subject.
If someone were to offer a reason why electric vehicles are different than any other topic, justifying why we have so many words, so many tables, so many comparison charts, I would listen. As far as I know, there isn't any reason electric car articles shouldn't follow the same guidelines as everything else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete before it spreads per above. Man, that is a lot of crap. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Trim on main page - This info seems to be way too niche. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:06, 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. czar 04:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Delia[edit]

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

Even though Delia has been signed by the Blackhawks, he will not pass WP:NHOCKEY until—or rather, unless—he plays a game for Chicago. Accordingly, this article has been created too soon; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject passed the GNG. Even were he to play in the minors this season, he's two or three years away from meeting NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 08:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely TOOSOON. Hopefully the COI issue is resolved peaceably.18abruce (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 29 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. I don't know whether EngiZe, the creator of the article, actually read the general notability guideline before stating that the three sources he or she cited show that the subject passes that guideline, but if so he has misread it. Three pages each with one brief passing mention (plus in one case a picture caption) do not constitute substantial coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Cloyd[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line entries or do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom is correct about current sourcing, and searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage needed to establish they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this, this and this are not reliable sources, I do not know what is. The sources clearly indicate, at it's worst, that the topic marginally passes WP:GNG for his involvement in production of The Recall and The Humanity Bureau, among others. --EngiZe (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 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 under WP:G4. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sartorius Trey[edit]

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

Already decided not to be a notable child actor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7 (appears to really only be an extra so far in his life) - I worked with the creator a small amount on IRC with the draft version, and I thought they said they'd be willing to keep at it as a draft. At the moment there are zero reliable sources to back this up. Recommend that the only way this can stay in existence is via the AFC process. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title is backward because the correct title is Create Protected. Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - When someone keeps creating the same page, in various titles to get past SALT, and it keeps getting deleted as A7, there's no reason to bring it here; the fact that there's a sock farm here only makes this point more true. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt - Totally non-notable. Socking and attempting to game the salting of Trey Sartorius should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 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. czar 04:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Optic Nerve Film[edit]

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

Does not satisfy corporate notability. No independent references provided (maybe because there aren't any). Google search does not find in-depth coverage (only the usual vanity hits). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. gongshow talk 06:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After some Googling I cannot even find any evidence of its existence beyond a LinkedIn profile for Still and its own website and YouTube channel.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:06, 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 merge to Soil science. czar 04:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depression storage capacity[edit]

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

Dicdef, untouched since 2009. Overly specific, dicdef, only one source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soil science, which has no mention of this aspect of the topic. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Northamerica. It is a useful topic, but better dealt with under soil science. I get the feeling that there may be an even better article to redirect this article to than soil science, but I can't think of anything more concise at the moment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 28 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Boniface[edit]

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

Although he passes WP:NFOOTY, I can't find any in-depth sources indicating he passes the higher bar of WP:GNG. Referencing from mere statistical databases is not sufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This BLP is about a footballer who played a handful of games in France's D2 (3) and Scotland's D2 (8). It's not even clear to me that Scotland's D2 was a fully-pro league in 2000 when he played there. I found one online Le Parisien article (an interview in connection with his signing for Stade Reims in 2002) that would qualify as significant coverage in a reliable source, but I'm struggling to find anything else. I don't think the article can pass the GNG, and it only meets NFOOTY by the narrowest of margins. Jogurney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate Struway2's efforts to expand the article, I am not convinced it can satisfy the GNG (the Le Parisien interview is the only non-routine coverage I've seen - although the Sunday Herald article does come close). Jogurney (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has made a number of appearances in two fully-professional leagues, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in fully professional leagues, this makes him meet WP:NFOOTBALL notability guidelines. IJA (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTBALL, the fact that the article needs improvement is not a case for deletion. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Passing NFOOTY is not enough to keep an article in the absence of a GNG pass. All of these keep votes are failing to take that into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded it to include a bit more non-matchreport non-database content. May well not be enough in the article to demonstrate GNG as it stands, but IMO there's enough to show the likelihood of someone with access to French newspapers of the time (there's surprisingly little freely available online) and interest enough to research the subject to be able to demonstrate it. I.e. "very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GiantSnowman. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:NFOOTY by playing over a dozen games in not one but two fully professional leagues. While there is consensus that someone who barely passes the criteria, by playing in one or two games in an FPL, can still be deleted, consensus is clearly and always that players who play more than that, are kept. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we certain that Scotland's D2 was fully-pro in 2000? The cites on WP:FPL are more recent, and there is at least one cite which suggests the league may not have been (e.g., players routinely contracted for less than a year to allow clubs to stay afloat or the 2006 Scotsman article; "Look at Raith Rovers, who are deservedly sitting at the top of the league just now. I think they have only nine full-time players, with the rest part-time."). Jogurney (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTBALL and has had a farely decent career having played from 1994 to 2006 for around 12 clubs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:57, 29 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. czar 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kehinde Nwandu[edit]

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

promotional article of a subject who fails WP:GNG. I found sources that made announcements about his bail after his involvement in cyber-crime which I think is not enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am weakly tending towards a keep. I am currently using a mobile device to edit, not very comfortable, will vote properly before the end of today. Darreg (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Darreg: you're tending towards a keep on what grounds? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more with feeling
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few news reports when I enter the name. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator regarding GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this article is probably designed to promote this individual. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources, only some with passing mentions, fails WP:BASIC, ANYBIO, GNG, BLP. A routine arrest for defamation does not demonstrate notability per WP:BLP1E and seems to be more like a publicity stunt, as does being publically thankful for surviving a motor vehicle accident. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:27, 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. czar 04:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal choice[edit]

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

PROD declined on this newly-created article. It's a personal essay; I see no content that should be merged to "Gender pay gap in the United States" and no sign that this is a commonly-used term (WP:NEO). Power~enwiki (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not worth merging to the essay-like content. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also seems to be a POV fork, created by an administrator -- and apparently, a former crat -- who really ought to know better. The article seems to have been created to give undue weight to the position that personal choices by women are a factor in them getting paid less. Well, fine. Put it in -- or argue it out -- in the main article, as noted above. I don't know what we're supposed to make of gems like "There are very few male "supermodels"." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons stated above. Rab V (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as recreation of article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tran Siu (2nd nomination). Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Siu (Australian politician)[edit]

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

no real evidence of notability. Essentially a who's who entry DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPOL. probable self promotion as created by a one edit editor. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability. Frickeg (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is a recreation of an article we deleted just a few weeks ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tran Siu (2nd nomination) — although the content was reworded slightly, the substance of his notability claim remained unchanged and the sourcing was not improved. I've accordingly speedied this as a G4 with WP:SALT. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 28 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. czar 04:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Association for Human Advancement[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Significant coverage in reliable sources not found, and sources in the article appear to be trivial mentions. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete 85% of the article is actually not about the org. No non-trivial sources. Insignificant awards claimed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at first glance, appears to be well sourced and notable but, as others have pointed out, the coverage is not in-depth Spiderone 10:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IEsuredI (talk • contribs) 01:02, 27 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.