Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 February 27 February >

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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delanie Wiedrich[edit]

Delanie Wiedrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I almost feel horse from saying the same thing over and over again in this matter. Miss America contestants are not default notable. We need widespread, indepth broad sourcing. Not just home town paper and radio reports and internal pageant bios. That is all we have here in the article. I looked to see if I could find either broader coverage or sustained coverage and found neither. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – Has sufficient Google News results for it to be considered notable. J947 00:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per J947 above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The news sourcing is all local and around the even of winning a state beauty pageant. It clearly is not enough to show notability. We had a long discussion on this on the ptlroject page for beauty pageants and it was clearly determined that this type of localized short burst of coversge was not enough to sgow notability. There needs to either by broad coverage in depth for the peageant which there is not or coverage of somethin else which there is not. The above votes also neglect the fact that mere showing up in a google news search does not show that the sources are providing theindepth coverage required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not all local. J947 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep article over qualifies WP:GNG which is basic yardstick for establishing notability on Wikipedia on second look nominator of article is currently answering a case on "his Behaviour of nominating numerous articles for deletion without taking time to read reference provided" Celestina007 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are prejudicing the nomination based on alleged behavior of the nominator without considering the nomination itself. This is just wrong. The article does not pass GNG. I looked into the sources and to claim that they pass GNG misrepresents GNG. You don't pass GNG with hometown newspaper citations, a few human interest stories, and articles in your college paper. To claim this article passes GNG is to misrepresent what GNG is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "on second look" do you not understand. They clearly made their mind up prior to seeing the ANI. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. — ξxplicit 04:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yong-hwa Ryu[edit]

Yong-hwa Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like a WP:HOAX - none of the references actually work, the content in the lead doesn't match the tables, all social media is private with little followers, and IMDB references are probably forged as well. There's no evidence this person was linked with any of the films/shows cited here Evaders99 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Amami[edit]

Tsubasa Amami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of a living person that lacks reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Sources provided are unsuitable for notability and include directory listings and primary sources.

The ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability, primarily consisting of non notable filmography and including trivia such as the subject's "hobby is playing with pets".

The appearance in a band is not indicative of notability. Per linked article (Ebisu Muscats), there are currently 29 members of the musical ensemble, and 45 past members. The other band is non notable.

I am also nominating the following related page because it's similar in content and scope; the subject is member of the two bands in question; ja.wiki article is likewise not indicative of notability.

Both articles were recently created by Special:Contributions/Gstree.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. While I usually don't approve of bundled nominations for porn stars, these two come from the same mass production run of poorly sourced articles for winners of the same non-notable award. Anything that looks even remotely reliable consists of trivial mentions. Remaining sources are the usual film databases, vendors and the award's site along with porn-following tabloid. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We don't keep BLPs with crappy sources and the assertion is that the award is some inhouse effort. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One reliable source documenting a porn award which confers some notability, but nothing else. Search tools yield nothing reliable or dedicated. Out with it. Tapered (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She's part of the jpop band Sexy-J.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://sexy-j.jp/common/member/memAmami.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abscription[edit]

Abscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I speedied this and it was cluelessly reverted here. As noted in the speedy nomination, this article is completely sourced to unreliable, WP:SPS refs from the company Ribomed Biotechnologies, Inc. and, was created by a SPA. This is 100% advertisement and would have to be completely rewritten from reliable sources if it were to remain in the encyclopedia. Opening a completely-waste-of-time deletion discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under WP:G11 - I concur with the nominator here. Promotional nonsense, obviously promotional, with no reason I can think of to decline the Speedy Deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's notable (or even comprehensible) enough, indeed, thanks for spotting it. PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out by User:DennisPietras, here. credit where credit is due. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete having been the one who stumbled upon this article and brought it to jytdog's attention, and being a newbie, I don't know if I'm supposed to vote, but, I agree it should be dispatched with speedily. I found it enormously entertaining that Adam9007 has a userbox on their page which indicates that they support "... deletion of articles that violate policies and guidelines." and yet they opposed this one that even a newbie spotted! DennisPietras (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the easiest article to evaluate for deletion, so different opinions are likely. The criteria for speedy deletion are also rather restricted. I think your vote indeed counts. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further analysis of article Again, I don't know if it is customary to do this, but in response to @PaleoNeonate: about the difficulty of evaluating the article, I'll write this. IF I thought there was an acceptable source in the article, it might be a candidate to be incorporated into Transcription (biology)#Promoter escape or Abortive initiation. Abortive initiation is an informative article created by @Iamozy:, who put Abscription into the "see also" section of that article. So, I believe that an old fart like me and a young subject-expert like Iamozy both agree that there is nothing in abscription worth having in an article about what RNA polymerase does early on. DennisPietras (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This assay might eventually become standard in the industry; however, in the mean time, it is a copyrighted process. It has been cited in the scientific literature, but is overwhelmingly cited by the original developers (those who also own the patents). I vote delete and suggest a very brief mention is included in a parent article (maybe bisulfite sequencing?) If included into another article, the patents should not be cited. I suggest: M. Hanna and D. McCarthy (2009), "Abstract #5173: Abscription-based, bisulfite-free, sensitive detection of methylated CpG islands", American Association for Cancer Research, 69 (9): 5173. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the revert of speedy mentioned in the nomination seems perfectly reasonable to me. The article text does not promote any particular company, person or publication; it does not say "abscription is a fantastic new technique that will cure cancer and clone unicorns" or anything like it, and even if it did it would hardly meet the WP:G11 barrier of would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION.. Of course, it's still a single-primary-source topic, so it should be deleted, but not as a G11 speedy (and I do not see any other fitting CSD). TigraanClick here to contact me 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Boi[edit]

Angel Boi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician - WP:GNG not met. Article has survived for 7 years with no independent, reliable sourcing - no evidence of any sustained coverage. (Note - during my WP:BEFORE I also came a cross a similarly-named act Lil Angel Boi who definitely isn't might possibly be the same person) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm amazed it made it this long with a single reference. That reference, BTW, is not a WP:RS so for all intents and purposed this thing has been unreferenced for years. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually I nominated an article yesterday or the day before that had been around since at least 2013 with the only reference being to a wordpress blog that expressly described itself as a fan site for the subject. So I am not surprised this article has survived so long with no reliable sourcing. There is clearly not enough here to pass the general notability guidelines so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two sources are unreliable PR stories. A brief search online showed one passing mention under "Lil Angel Boi". That's it. So this completely fails WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also added {{primary sources|date=March 2017}} to the article. (non-admin closure) J947 02:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graphiq[edit]

Graphiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear company-webhosted advertising and also contributed by clear involved employees and affiliates, there's no automatic inherited inherited notability from anything or anyone and all sources here are either their own websites or press releases, including the supposedly independent ones since they themselves quote, label or source the company itself which wouldn't satisfy our simplest policies since we always need genuine independent sources. Searches found nothing but clear published and republished business announcements. Our policies are stated as non-negotiable against company webhosts g because it's unacceptable in an encyclopedia. In fact, what confirms this was and still is a company-hosted advertisement, the talk page has a label that states "User was paid for their contributions". To analyze the current sources:

  • 1 is company profile
  • 2 is same (company website)
  • 3 is a trade publication profiling the company's own images
  • 4 is same as 1-2
  • 5 is same above
  • 6 is same above
  • 7 is same above
  • 8 is another clearly labeled trade publication press release
  • 9 is trivial
  • 10 is same as before
  • 11 is company profile
  • 12-20 is same again
  • 21 is company website
  • 22 is company press release
  • 23-25 is same
  • 26 is company website
  • 27-28 are same as earlier
  • None of this satisfies our simplest standards WP:CORPDEPTH which says coverage must be independent significant and not trivial. In considerations to the above, my searches instantly found pages of PR: see
  • First 10 are clear PR
  • 10 is same
  • 10 is same
  • 10 is same
  • 10 is same
  • Until the pages actually start repeating the links.
  • Also, of the current sources, they all fit the above criteria:
  • 1 is a press release in trade publisher
  • 2 is trivial, wherever published
  • 3 is a mere announcement
  • 4 is again
  • 5 is again
  • 6 is same as 1, complete with the mirrored PR consistency
  • 7 is exactly same as above
  • GNG has never been an immediate policy because we as an encyclopedia control what we accepted, not a mere guideline that says itself "may be presumed [but not guaranteed]".

SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Note that the sources listed below are not aligned with the chronology presented in the deletion nomination above. North America1000 06:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment and analysis - These are the same exact sources analyzed above in terms of publication because:
  • 1 is a "starting company" PR piece
  • 2 is a trivial mention in a tech blog (regardless of name)
  • 3 is another tech publication
  • 4, 5, 6 and 7 are same
  • 8 is a trivial mention alongside the notables of Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, etc. so notability is not inherited
  • 9, 10, 11 and 12 are clear PR including the given label of the company's involvements, a clear criteria by WP:CORPDEPTH ("routine notices, announcements and mentions will not establish notability"). Shown how they're not satisfying both our standards and policies. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the second recent proposal for deletion of this article. I like the above 'References' listing and would favor adding the new items in it to the new 'Further reading' section in the article with a request to emphasize the norm to future editors -- "it's better to work to integrate the sources and their contents into the article itself." Beyond that, while it's not complete I'm going to rest for now my favoring keeping the article on the Further reading (with 'External links' maybe the better heading for the section) plus my response to the first proposal. Swliv (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your policy for showing we accept these articles? Because the two we always use here are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:What Wikipedia is not and "it's better to work to integrate the sources and their contents into the article itself" when it's not satisfying said policies. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your blizzard of numbers. What's wrong with '7' for example, NYTimes? Number of employees; how people work there; reach; type of databases; do I need to go on? have you bothered to look? What about the Fox News cite (and I give the DoubleClick good weight too) from my first response? It's not a top rank article but it's something, real, in a fast-moving market I know I don't understand well. I was glad to find it (finally) on the "moose-" hunt and glad to improve it so it would help more encyclopedia users find, appreciate and hopefully improve it in the future. The 'patent troll' lawsuits? They don't interest me enough at the moment to do more than say 'Fine in External links' but they are independent enough for me for WP:GNG if you really need a policy to see the basic functionality. What is inherently wrong with "tech publications"? And how is the NYTimes a "tech publication"? I don't understand your approach: Ignoring my first Talk post. Shunting off to this second effort in a new place without any acknowledgement of the responses to your first, outvoted effort; or any referral to those of us who responded to your first try. (Common courtesy, I have to say.) Ignoring/inexplicably, cursorily demeaning the other editor's efforts. Wow. Put an NPOV on the article if you're really bothered, try to prod more effort, move on, keep an eye on it. Does that help at all or is (speedy, bulldozer) 'Delete' the only answer you'll accept? You're not getting it from me by a long shot yet. What's 'we always use'? Do you and yours have examples of articles you've managed to delete? Or are they just happily gone for good, out of sight? I see your WP:CORPDEPTH. Independence is one criteria (with External links starting to make up that gap) but there are other features of Audience and Depth that are better covered already in the article. Missing -- except maybe implicitly in, say, Audience -- is the Fox News example: If the products are being used it ought to be covered as best it can be, in my opinion. I see the "Advertising, marketing or public relations" paragraph in the 'is not' policy but I don't see this article as being that. It's a private company, five years old or so. It's running hard. Its website tells a lot about it. It motivated an affiliated individual to want to see it in Wiki. The article and editor've been chastised and also cleared of any horrible, permanently disabling wrongdoing associated with those tainted, amateur-mistake beginnings; and it's grown from there. External links show it's not unknown in the world, someone has to do the work to upgrade further and the links give a good place to start as do the upgraded templates now on the Talk page. I hope you can get your head around all that. I'm at a bit of a loss; you seem -- to go back to my beginning here -- to think you can quickly fling lists and numbers and never get into the subject at all; typo after typo doesn't help your presentation or credibility. (I know you've pushed me to lots of sentence fragments, here. Apologies if they bother you as much as typos do bother me.) I'm not questioning your motive; but your tactics and process and objective do sting; and take a lot more time to deal with than you seem to be putting in to proposing deletion (and not bothering to deal with responses). I see you hurting the encyclopedia by taking out a now-3rd-ranked but helpful bit of an article; a bit which is a fine platform for more work as it's warranted; a bit which would leave a definite hole if removed. Enough, probably too much. Keep. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but move to Draft space to remove promotionalism Most of the sources are indeed unusable, but the Aug. 6 Lohr article in the NYT is substantial coverage--I've sometimes been a little skeptical of its BITS section , but this seems like good reporting. The INC. article also, the PR-influenced, isn't too bad. The patent troll material is significant also. (The later article by Lohr defended just above is however only in small part about the company). The inclusion of all the PR does make for a promotional article. The question we now face, is for what does seem to be a significant company, how do we remove the promotionalism ? I think that anyone arguing keep simply on the basis that the promotionalism can be removed is not giving an adequate reason, unless they as a competent editor are actually prepared to remove the promotionalism themselves. If I was willing to do it, I would have !voted keep, and done it, as I 've done for an article day or two ago -- and many times before. Bt since I'm not interested in this one, unless someone else is, the fairest thing to do is to move it to draft space until someone does fix it. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the Draft process mean that the current article is completely gone from the encyclopedia -- for ‘Search’, internal and external, for example; for links to Graphiq from elsewhere in Wiki -- for however long re-drafting may take? The question gets to my ‘adequate reason’ for keeping the article while improvements continue to be made. It seems to me to be an important, small private company. It has a significant predecessor (DoubleClick, sold to Microsoft) and important competitors (IBM and Google were the other two in the Lohr article I read at random from the list, each of the three receiving about 1/4 of the article; with a serious testament to the 'fast-growing start-up' Graphiq in 2013 there). I happened on Graphiq via its MooseRoots.com site through a credit line in Fox News. I wouldn’t want to take Wikipedia out of the loop by removing a substantial four-year-old article even temporarily and possibly indefinitely. Some of the complaint here still goes back to the article’s beginnings which have been considerably -- and to other editors' satisfaction -- addressed years ago. No one else here has addressed the alternative of restoring the NPOV template, less drastic than deleting or moving to Draft mode and a good motivator to steady improvement. Still a Keep. Swliv (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be removed from Google and other external search engines which honor our guidelines about which items to index, but would remain in some external indexes that do not. It would continue to be searchable within Wikipedia--it would show up as being in Draft, and this AfD discussion would also be findable. Even if it were deleted entirely, the afddiscussion would remain findable within WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DGG. (1) Any opinion on WP:NPOV template as a less drastic solution? (2) I like that at least within WP the search would lead to the Draft but feel it would still leave a big gap. In the last 90 days 35 average with a few nice spikes to 60-and-above users have accessed the article daily. As flawed as it is I think those users were helped and not damaged by finding what we currently have. But I've convinced myself. I hereby add: Favor NPOV. It would improve user experience with the warning and encourage users maybe to pitch in and help. (3) We don't seem to be moving toward complete deletion but if it occurred, along with the afd continuing available there's also the ability by an administrator to revive the article (to put into Draft, for instance) upon request so all the work done to date is not lost, am I correct? Thanks again. SwisterTwister Did my response have too much annoyance in it for you to bother to respond (even after your running me around as documented and my other concerns with your approach)? I'm sorry, if so. I didn't even address your opening phrase -- "Clear company-webhosted advertising" -- which, to me, goes to motive for a good number of editors like myself, I think, who've acted in good faith, in line with policies as we understand them and in the interest of the encyclopedia; not to mention the editor who pursued and cleared, to his or her satisfaction, the original unintentional breach of policy. Yes, I still have my displeasure with your approach and tone and I continue to be sorry -- I'm puzzled by what you're trying to accomplish; how you think removal would improve WP; your combination of rigor and quick-to-all-or-nothing-solution. Maybe NPOV will help some, for you too. Maybe 2-1/2-to-1 current vote has you fuming off-page. Anyway, I've reopened an approach to you here because you've, notably, not acknowledged my response to your question in any way. I hope you can find a way through your opinion(s) to try to join in this hopefully collaborative, I'd call it, editorial decision-making process. Thanks. For the record, also: Still a Keep. Cheers all. Swliv (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  It is not enough to say that there is somewhere someplace promotionalism...it must be identified so that the problem is actionable.  However, I will say that the first sentence is incomprehensible jargon and the second not much better, and if we have editors paid to work on this article, maybe we can ask them to lower the reading level of the lede.  Even if I don't really know what this company's product is, Reuters and AP have a clear idea, and they are the ones that count.  The heritage from DoubleClick seems to carry a lot of weight.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, you've set an impossible condition: If there are specific promotional elements the article shouldn't be deleted because they can be fixed, and unless there are specific elements it shouldn't be deleted (presumably because we then can't be sure it's promotional. What makes this article appropriate for deletion is the use throughout of inadequate sources accompanied by a pervasive promotional tone--it would have to be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a company one of whose products is advertising.  And DoubleClick is hardly a stranger to advertising as a product.  Removing advertising is called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Are we also going to censor the previous name of the company "FindTheBest"?  That name by itself is promotional.  The majority of the article at this point is references.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about for the article? Swliv (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Draftspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2 for Faith[edit]

Take 2 for Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft it's not possible to tell what kind of notoriety or coverage it'll get till it's released. If it becomes a hit, it might be notable, but we can't tell about that now. By moving it to draftspace, we can keep the content and hopefully add sources, or delete the draft if the film is a flop. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/Draftify until such time that the film is able to meet the GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft/userpace as per above. Lepricavark (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If sources pop up someone can go to WP:REFUND & have it undeleted, At present the film isn't notable so the best solution is to delete for now (Once moved to draft - If the film becomes a flop it wold mean the draft would have to go to MFD so it would've meant all this moving & flaffing around for nothing whereas deletion is one simple click and undeletion is again one simple click). –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Badloe[edit]

Sandeep Badloe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking over the sources they seem to tend towards things like facebook and his personal website. This is not the level of sources to show he is actually a notable musician or that he passes the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Likely promotional, and seems to be written like an advertisement. Also, fails notability criteria for music and general notability. - TheMagnificentist 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep. As no one has expressed any desire for deletion except the nominator, it is safe to close this half a day early per WP:SNOW. Leaving it up would not change the consensus. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetan Augsburger[edit]

Gaetan Augsburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The league Augsburger plays in is not one that playing in it grants notability. The sources are not enough to pass the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I've never edited or considered a hockey article in my time here yet it took me about two seconds to confirm that per WP:NHOCKEY "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" is the first criterion and that the National League A (NLA) in which he plays "is a professional ice hockey league in Switzerland. It is the top tier of the Swiss hockey league system". Nom should be withdrawn. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - yes, NHOCKEY seems well satisfied. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets criterion 3 of WP:NHOCKEY - has played over 200 matches in National League A per the hockeyDB.com reference in the article. Hack (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than a two second glance of NHOCKEY would have revealed the very first sentence of the criteria. That sentence is "For lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. All other leagues do not meet the specified criteria." Criterion #1 does not, and never has, mean that anyone who's skated so much as a minute in a single game for the premier league in every nation is notable, or people'd be writing articles for beer leaguers in Bhutan and Mexico. Hack is right, however, that the subject meets criterion #3. Ravenswing 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment hmmm it needs to be better worded then because on the face of it that's exactly what it implies to someone without a background in the material.--- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How better to word it than, "For lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject." And those lists are linked in that opening sentence, what am I missing?18abruce (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Meets WP:NHOCKEY Criteria #3 with 200+ games played in Switzerland's National League A. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as noted above, meets criteria #3. Lepricavark (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NHOCKEY #3. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. I'm closing this early as no other users have !voted to delete the article, and given the direction the discussion is going, there's no evidence to suggest that keeping this open for the full seven days will change that. (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Atkins (basketball)[edit]

Simon Atkins (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Atkins has not played in one of the leagues that is listed as a league playing in grants notability for basketball players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PBA players get a lot of media coverage. Atkins should pass the GNG easily: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG per above, PBA may not appear in list of NBASKETBALL leagues but is the top professional league in the Philippines. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above, PBA seems professional enough to ensure notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Babymissfortune 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PBA satisfies the requirement of being the top pro league in the Philippines. Lepricavark (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep as coverage above demonstrates gng, so the unfortunate omission of PBA as a top level league in the basketball essay is irrelevant. Jacona (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Zagalejo, meets GNG. The rest of you should be providing sources as "plays for a top professional league" is not an automatic notability qualifier. That the PBA is not included in the guideline is not "irrelevant," the fact is that no one has done the legwork to investigate whether every single player appearing in a game - including the case where someone appears for just a few minutes in a single contest - are notable. It may be the case, but that's why the league isn't included in WP:NBASKETBALL. The other issue with the article is that there isn't a single source on it that is a reliable, independent source representing significant coverage of Atkins himself. This is a very common problem with a lot of basketball articles and it is bad practice Rikster2 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he meets GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL (or any other essay) is irrelevant to this discussion. Jacona (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I misunderstood you. Rikster2 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 03:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden-Harnett[edit]

Hayden-Harnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in independent reliable sources, which those in the article are not, so it fails WP:COMPANY. Tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable indy design house (2 people I understand). The article has had plenty of chances for improvement, but it did not occur. Coverage that I see is shallow and mostly in advertorially toned pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. small company with insufficient RS coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuoyo Egodo[edit]

Tuoyo Egodo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:RLN, according to the source provided in the article, he has not yet played in Super League, the NRL or even the Challenge Cup. – skemcraig⊗ 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a rugby player, he is a rugby league player.Fleets (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've already had this discussion Fleets, it's perfectly acceptable to call RL players "rugby players". In Northern England, it's normal. – skemcraig⊗ 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we need to remember that this is a global wiki and must I'm afraid, and not to my liking, default to going with the global norm, or at least be more accurate when looking to clear or kill an article. Either way JPL should possibly tidy up their wording a smidge, because as previously he would pass the rugby union rationale, but fail one element of the current version of the RLN. As you can see one little word can make a world of difference.Fleets (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - professional in a pro league.Fleets (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:RLN. Number 57 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a second division, non-notable player. The article was created too soon. Mattlore (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional in a pro league, playing for a pro team.Chocolatebareater (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947 03:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Khawaja[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Haroon Khawaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the subject received some press mentions, but fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Saqib (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be some doubt about last Afd, which removes my initial doubt. scope_creep (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is enough neutral stuff to consider this article. There may be some technical mistakes (as it is my first article) which I am ready to update. To validate Haroon Khawaja as a notable and politician i have found some more following links.
http://pakobserver.net/expert-group-calls-for-revision-of-proposed-elections-bill/
http://dailytimes.com.pk/islamabad/27-Jan-17/experts-not-happy--with--the-elections-bill-2017-
http://lahoreworld.com/tag/haroon-khawaja/ (this has several links)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvIx4RIsxe8 (and part 2 of this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxePKPl8Wk (and part 2 & 3)
Mr. Saqib has edited the article and removed whole of its content doesn't seem fair to me while now we have enough references about Haroon Khawaja.
Gresys (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First two references (Daily Times and Pak Observer) are already cited in the article despite the fact they both doesn't contain much information about the subject. YouTube interviews are usually not cited unless the video is produced by a well reputed source. The TV channels (Such TV and Royal News) who did interview are not considered a RS so I won't cite the YouTube interviews. lahoreworld.com source is not a RS. --Saqib (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per links added to the article by @Toddy1: during the AfD which closed with consensus to keep one week ago (also pinging closing admin: @Coffee:). Smmurphy(Talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smmurphy:: out of five references added to the article by Toddy1, three are unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain which sources you consider unreliable, and why.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lahore World and Pakistan Telegraph are a user generated news website with no editorial board. Both news website have no credibility. Pakistan Defence is a user generated forum and not a news website. --Saqib (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that Lahore World and Pakistan Telegraph are user generated news websites?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Pakistan Defence is a forum, mentioning it in the previous discussion was an error.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioning The Nation (a Pakistan newspaper), was also an error. I saw that Haroon Khawaja had written a column for it on 26 December 2016, and had not realised that that was the only column he had written for it (rather in the same way that Western politicians sometimes write columns for newspapers). There are hundreds of other articles mentioning him in The Nation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1:: Both sources Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World) are clearly questionable sources with no editorial oversight so why not avoid them as they surely has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. I don't know how to prove that both are unreliable sources but being a local, I never heard about them nor they're being used on Wikipedia as references apart from a couple of bio pages. --Saqib (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Thank you for explaining why you believe that Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World might be "questionable sources" - you are a local, and have never heard of them.
But you do accept that the following sources are reliable?
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, and I know the subject received several press mentions in The Nation but I wonder if merely getting press mentions makes one notable enough to warrant an entry on WP? majority of press mention in The Nation just quote his name and position and nothing else. I'm failed to find a single source which look like a bio or profile or even discuss about his education, career, family etc. Anyways, If you still disagree with me and think that getting press coverage makes one notable then lets close this nomination, keep the page and spend time on something else. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the press coverage in reliable sources makes him notable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As way too soon for another nomination per WP:DELAFD - "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favour of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it is particularly helpful to fall back on a point of procedure to try and hasten the close of the Afd. There is obviously serious doubt as regards the notability of the subject in the mind of Saqib. Being closer to a culture gives you a much better understanding of it. The references raised by User:Toddy1 are mostly not there, and the article is hanging on by it's proverbial fingernails. In the last Afd, the premise was it passed WP:BASIC by coverage, but Saqib show the coverage is not reliable, hence, it is not enough to satisfy the BLP process. scope_creep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability of a person is determined by physical ground facts and how citizens of Pakistan recognise the person. In this particular case building of Industrial estates, managing and hold different portfolio's have made HK a person who is respected and praised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelhashmi (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salbari High School[edit]

Salbari High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - article moved during discussion.

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, not really about a school as such, also fails WP:V JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Numerous sources found just by clicking "find sources" above. Yes, they're weak sources, but they're enough to satisfy the truly awful WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Exemplo347 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school itself is notable under WP guidelines, but the article fails WP policy WP:TITLE, and the content can still fail other policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. The text of the article is not about the school. The article needs to be renamed to Salbari or it must be rewritten to only contain information pertinent to the high school. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, deletion isn't cleanup... Exemplo347 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did a cleanup, now it is at least pretending to be about the school! Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct name is Salbari Higher Secondary School (incorrectly moved from Salbari HS School to current name). I will move if it's OK, or can wait to see if it survives AfD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that would have been my mistake, sorry. I was under the assumption that Google Maps had led me to Salbari as referred to in the article and based my edits on that one. In retrospect however, that Salbari was in another state although still close to Assam, so you get my confusion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to the correct title, leaving the redirect in place. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused in the same way. Salbari High School seems more notable than Salbari Higher Secondary School, but then I realized the description in the article didn't match the location of Salbari High School. Very interesting location. I'd be afraid of the tigers in Manas National Park, but apparently plenty of people live around there! Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph (Calcutta) made the same mistake.Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm waiting on the administrator's noticeboard discussion to resolve the RfC on secondary school notability. I found enough for WP:V of the school, at least, but not of all the content in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Struck my vote, as the RfC concluded that simple proof of existence is not enough to satisfy the GNG for Secondary Schools (in my opinion, the correct conclusion that brings Secondary Schools in line with every other subject). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The conclusion was that secondary schools require special consideration, and in particular that a search of local print media is necessary. We need someone fluent in local languages to look for us. There is no evidence of a search of local media in this AfD, especially as the nominator was not even aware the article is about Salbari Higher Secondary School rather than Salbari High School, which is in another state and about 150 miles away from the subject of the article. That is a big miss, and makes this AfD very questionable at the outset. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as a WWF-India model school (added to article with citations). Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that further comments should reflect the outcome of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received press coverage, including some online in English (there is likely more offline and in other local languages) and been singled out for participation in a government program. Thanks to HyperGaruda for moving it to the correct title and to Jacknstock for finding and adding sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found articles in the largest selling English-language daily in the world (yes, the world), the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India, and the fifth most-widely read English newspaper in India – between the three, total circulation about 5,000,000. As you say, that's without any review of newspapers in indigenous languages or offline. The odd thing is that I initially thought that Salbari High School was more notable than Salbari H.S. School, and it turns out that it's merely bigger. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the credits for moving it to the correct name should go to Exemplo347. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some good refs. As a degree granting secondary school it clearly meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Speedy keep, I should say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given how many poorly-written articles exists about secondary schools nominating a very good one for deletion is not helpful at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair to the nominator, the article was markedly different when nominated. It might not have been nominated in its present form. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence has been presented during this discussion to show that the article's subject meets our notability criteria. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion, at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Anambra[edit]

Miss Anambra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a Nigerian local beauty pageant with little press coverage, other than that about the sex scandal involving the 2015 titleholder. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Since the article is properly formatted, and fairly new, having only been put up late last year, I vote that we give this page a chance as long as more sourcing can be found by its editors.TH1980 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The peagant is quite notable in Nigeria
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The pageant is fairly new. It has gained coverage in reliable sources. I understand that most of the sources online are about the sex scandal, but the fact of the matter is that the pageant has been discussed one way or another.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just state pageant and not a national pageant; not much history.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete: per WP:1E and WP:TOOSOON. The references that exists are either press release from organizers or centered on controversies. It has produced only two winners, one of which is notable for something totally unrelated to being crowned a queen. This well written article could be notable in the future, but for now I don't think it is. Darreg (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG and wp:anybio as she has received significant coverage in reliable multiple sources independent of her , also she has won a beauty pageant in Nigeria which initially Brougt her to limelight.

Admin should perharps do a google search to see, for himself / herself Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: The article is not about a subject. It is about a pageant. I don't understand why you're commenting on the "notability" of one of the pageant winners. Just curious, were you making a case for Chizoba Ejike? If you were, please do not waste time because the Chizoba Ejike article was recently deleted via an AFD discussion. You can view said discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chizoba Ejike.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk?
  • Delete - with no prejudice for future recreation if it becomes notable in years to come. Simply does not pass WP:GNG currently. Onel5969 TT me 20:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, subnational pageant, does not (yet) pass WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. — Sam Sailor 03:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - local beauty pageant - doesn't pass WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 13:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article meets WP:GNG. it has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Subnational beauty pageants is notable, in Pakistan and the United States. Nigeria is divided into states, it is time to accept that. Stanleytux (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Andrade[edit]

Juan Pablo Andrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the teams Andrade has played for have been part of fully professional leagues, so he does not meet the inclusion requirements for football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucatumumab[edit]

Lucatumumab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This drug candidate was found not to be efficacious and never made it past Phase I clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep – Regardless of the efficacy or usefulness of the drug, this topic nevertheless meets WP:GNG, albeit on a possibly weaker level, because it has received enough independent coverage to qualify for an article. See some source examples below. North America1000 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of actually significant secondary coverage emerges. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the refs brought above:
A search on pubmed for reviews finds 4 refs in English. PMID 25249370 is like the OKish refs above, and just summarizes the Phase I paper. PMID 24555495 however has extensive discussion of the published science around this mAb as of its date (it was received in Sept 2013). PMID 19362983 is from 2009 and is very brief. It discusses 2 small Phase I trials under the old development name HCD-122. PMID 18336199 is too old to be relevant.
I did what I could to complete the story with the best refs I could find (which were not great) in these diffs.
I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted. I won't moan either way, but this is not a slam-dunk "keep" by any means. It is borderline at best. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I modified my !vote above. North America1000 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original bjh article has been cited over 74 times in Google Scholar.Another paper on the subject in Blood [5] has been cited 140 times. A third in Leukemia & [6], 84 times. That's several hundred citations to the substances. We normally keep substances with even a few. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akwasi Owusu Ansah[edit]

Akwasi Owusu Ansah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ansah is a minor rapper without the coverage to justify a stand alone article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On small independent label. No independent sources. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarboy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sugarboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The OkayAfrica source is the only reliable independent source I could find that discusses the subject. One reliable source is not enough to establish notability. None of the songs released by the artist charted on reliable charts, despite the article stating that some of his songs charted on the Billboard world album chart. Both the Africa and Playdata charts are not reliable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no more notable today than he was back in June of 2016.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His page's currently lack reliable sources but here is one i found on OkayAfrica which discuss the subject [7]. He may not have be nominated for one of does A-list awards in Nigeria like The Headies but he was nominated for 2016 "Top Naija Music Awards" which is know as a B-list award in Nigeria that has nominated so many A-list act.. It's a keep from me, the artist may not have meet criteria 8 fully but i think the article deserve to be kept cause i have a believe more reliable source are coming; an so far he has been recognize for his one time breakthrough single "Hola Hola" which currently hit 1.2 million views on YouTube, so i think we should keep the article an help in improving it, it may be hard trying to improve this article because the name "Sugarboy" is a topic of many, but i believe we should give it a try.--Obari2Kay (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obari2Kay: You really need to read WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO before you create another article or participate in another AFD discussion. Being nominated for a non-notable award or receiving "millions" or views on YouTube are not legitimate reasons for a topic to be kept. None of what you said shows the subject being notable for stand-alone inclusion. As a matter of fact, you have failed to make a case for the subject.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe in the future this subject will be notable, but I don't see any convincing evidence that's the case now. Nor was it at the last AFD. I cannot see what criterion of WP:MUSICBIO is met. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete & redirect. czar 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Taeyang[edit]

Yoo Taeyang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A case of WP:TOOSOON (to add: Individual members of SF9, with the exception of Kang_Chan-hee, are NOT notable enough to have their own articles as their activities are exclusively within the group SF9 and nowhere else.) Tibbydibby (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment @ Tibbydibby: WP:TOOSOON is not a policy-based reason for deletion, could the deletion rationale be expanded, please? Prima facie the article doesn't look like much, but a search for the Hangul 유태양 reveals a lot of hits. I do not speak Korean, what do all these search results reveal? — Sam Sailor 20:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TOOSOON means not yet notable, an excellent reason for deletion. Not my field, but how can a "Pre-debut" performer possibly be already notable? DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not, in which case a bold WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT per WP:ATD-R is a possible policy-based solution. — Sam Sailor 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sam Sailor: I expanded a little bit for the SF9 members that I opened AfD discussion with, but these members are only members of SF9, nothing more. This is why they are being deleted. Tibbydibby (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust you do what is right based on the sources. Do consider if a categorized {{R from member}} to the band article SF9 per alternatives to deletion would be a useful search term. — Sam Sailor 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapid Delete Article cites no references. Only one result for all search tools at top, not a reliable sources. No reliable sources = no notability = delete. Tapered (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band article SF9 as a categorized {{R from member}}. Subject's name is a plausible search term, redirects are cheap, and redirecting rather than deleting is a policy based alternative that is supported by WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. — Sam Sailor 03:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SF9. As Sam Sailor said, redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) J947 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dawon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lee Dawon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A case of WP:TOOSOON (to add: Individual members of SF9, with the exception of Kang_Chan-hee, are NOT notable enough to have their own articles as their activities are exclusively within the group SF9 and nowhere else.) Tibbydibby (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not independently notable outside of his group. — ξxplicit 01:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band article SF9 as a categorized {{R from member}}. Subject's name is a plausible search term, redirects are cheap, and redirecting rather than deleting is a policy based alternative that is supported by WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. — Sam Sailor 03:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a relevant article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Boyle[edit]

Leo Boyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Leo Boyle was an NCO with well-known Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. However, Boyle does not qualify as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Virtually the entire page is anecdotal. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There appear to be a large number of links to Boyle. Many are because Boyle appears in the {{Band of Brothers (miniseries)}} template.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Boyle died before the Band of Brothers tv series when its living subjects became more famous. He did not achieve the same level of fame, and thus doesn't, in my opinion, meet GNG. There is a Leo Boyle who was major general and later adjutant general in the Illinois National Guard in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a search at newspapers.com; I presume that is a different individual, is anyone sure? Smmurphy(Talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my !vote. While I think that GNG is weaker for Easy Company members who died before the miniseries and thus did not receive as much press, I'm not sure GNG isn't met, at least for Boyle, by coverage in books about Easy Company, especially given the level of detail about this individual's life included in those sources. If pressed, I'd !vote Weak keep on those grounds. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see anything of note in the article that would make him notable enough for an article, the main claim in the article is being wounded twice not unlike tens of thousands of other brave soldiers who did there duty that we dont have articles on either for similar reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I follow the links to News, Newspapers, Books, and NYT, I get nothing identifiable with the Leo Boyle to whom this article applies. If there's something I'm not seeing, I appreciate having it pointed out to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CricNepal[edit]

CricNepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet web notability criteria. Article lacks reliable sources, almost all citations are self published from the website itself. Can't find any sources online from non-trivial published works that demonstrate notability. Article also seems to have been created by the website's founder and has been deleted multiple times previously. Jevansen (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the nominator, can't find any significant coverage in independent sources. Jenks24 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Player clearly fails the subject-specific guideline, but this is irrelevant since there has been no successful attempt to indicate GNG either in this discussion or in article itself.

I can find nothing of substance on this player that would indicate the player has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the article, one source is provided that discusses the player in three brief sentences along with a number of other players. A second brief source essentially consists of one simple quote from the player and short context. Additionally in this discussion only one other source was presented to support GNG, a source which essentially and briefly reports a single tweet made by the player.

In both the article and following a search myself, I can find nothing more of any substance on this player.

As an aside, I would suggest to keep voters, that the correct way to deal with gender bias on WP is to write more articles about notable women, not to lower the notability barrier for notable women. I would suggest players listed here, an article just three clicks away from this player's article as a good place to start for female players that would pass NFOOTY easily. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman[edit]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Abdul-Rahman has not competed significantly at the adult level and thus does not meet our notability criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NFOOTBALL disadequately covers the top-tier of women's football and "adult" is not noted in any relevant notability guideline. NP:FOOTY's perpetually incomplete list of notable leagues is not reliable as a notability guideline - nor is it agreed upon as a notability guideline in a search of the group's archives. Further, this article does not fail WP:GNG. It could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Disappointing although not unsurprising to see the continued wikilawyering around the exact wording of the guideline from the user above. The word "adult" is not used because "Tier 1 International Match" and "competitive senior international match" are the formal ways of describing adult football as opposed to youth football (e.g. U17 or U20)... Number 57 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to constitute an unnecessary personal attack, violating WP:NPA and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Please remain civil even if you don't agree with your peers. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting behavioural issues should not be pointed out? Perhaps we should close ANI in that case. Number 57 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm saying the use of the words "Disappointing although not unsurprising" consist of unnecessary sarcasm, and appear to be a personal attack. I don't see why those words needed to be here. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wasn't sarcasm – she does this all the time. Number 57 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NFOOTY; youth football doesn't count Spiderone 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a surprising amount of media coverage for an African female footballer. Noting [8] and other articles referenced in the article are borderline WP:GNG and keeping in mind WP:BIAS we should be fighting Gender bias on Wikipedia and encouraging such articles. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gender has nothing to do with it – we just deleted an article on male footballer who was an U20 international but hadn't played in a fully pro league. It's a shame we can't seem to have an AfD on a female footballer without this sort of misrepresentation... Number 57 21:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gender has everything to do with it, with the serious systemic bias that exists in the the sport. It's unfortunate that you turn to wikilawyering rather than following the spirit of WP:BIAS, WP:IGNORE, and WP:COMMON. Given the media coverage that this player has received, despite the bias that exists, the article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't have anything to do with it because we are being consistent with the deletion process regardless of gender. It also seems strange that you're accusing me of wikilawyering considering you apparently consider it a personal attack based on the statement above (you also don't seem to understand what wikilawyering is – there's a guide here). Number 57 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pointing out wikilawyering was not the personal attack. It was the unnecessary and insulting sarcasm that you layered it in "Disappointing although not unsurprising". These words were not necessary. The whole point is that we shouldn't be consistent with deletion on the basis of gender, given the bias that exists in the primary sources. Given what actually exists in primary sources already, then WP:GNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should be used to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Number 57 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm saying the top U-20 national team player in a country is generally notable when they aren't female. So we shouldn't be stuck up on our own rules to not consider them notable because they are female. We have different notability rules for different sports already. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • But that simply isn't true. We routinely delete articles on players who are youth international regardless of the country they play for (as an example this Cameroonian U20 international (since recreated after he played in a fully-pro league) or this Irish U21 international – note the comments in both regarding youth caps not conferring notability). Number 57 19:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In neither case, do I see the media coverage that I see here. In neither case are we talking about the top player on the team. I don't see the basis for the comparison. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HMLarson and NFitz. Sources satisfy WP:BASIC. Her status as a pre-eminent youth footballer in Ghana should be considered for a holistic approach to deletion, which I feel is needed for articles on people and activities from non-western countries. Frankly, we wouldn't be having this discussion about a woman's footballer in the US with the same credentials.--TM 12:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Namiba: I'm pretty sure we would – we have consistently deleted articles on footballer with youth caps regardless of their nationality and gender. As an example, this AfD resulted in the deletion of an article on an American player who was an U20 and U23 international. Unfortunately whenever we discuss the potential deletion of a female footballer various accusations of bias (and worse) start getting thrown around when I think we are actually very consistent. Number 57 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This article fails WP:NFOOTY, but just might make the general notability guidelines due to the coverage the subject has received as an Anfrican female footballer. However I would not be totally opposed for a delete as well as this article also seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer. A plausible search term given that it is an NCAA Division 1 program. However, sole keep vote is erroneous, as this season satisfies none of the criteria suggested for college programs Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer team[edit]

2014 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD by IP user. The user added one WP:PRIMARY source in an effort "...to validify article". Article still makes no claim to notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, and similar articles have been deleted before (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. GauchoDude (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and there is prior consensus supporting the deletion of these kind of articles as not inherently notable. GiantSnowman 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer - fails WP:NSEASONS as mentioned above, but the same policy says that in such cases, the page should ideally be redirected to the main article if it exists rather than being deleted outright. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per Smartyllama's comment, although a delete could also be appropriate. Lacks the coverage to stand as an independent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this fails WP:NSEASONS, it's a Division I NCAA program, that's the pinnacle of college soccer in the U.S. There are plenty of Division I football season articles, I think the same logic would exist here. If there's an issue with a lack of content, that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century. czar 22:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dependent territory leaders in the year 2017[edit]

List of dependent territory leaders in the year 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
List of dependent territory leaders in the year 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need lists like this for every year? According to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we do not.

I'm also unconvinced that WP:LISTN is met:

"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"

in a WP:GNG fashion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I don’t understand why you say “we do not” It is your opinion not the opinion of a group. Secondly they are a lot of list by year. I find List of elections by year, list of country by year and more others, Why a list of dependent territory leaders is not necessary? Concerning independent reliable sources. Why www.rulers.org and www. worldstatesmen.org are not independent and reliable sources? I understand if someone is not interested in archontology. If you are not it is no problem. But they are other persons whom are. And you don’t hold absolute truth Bogdan Uleia (talk)

The fact that other similar articles exist is not relevant to deletion discussions. Also, in the sources you give, you're not showing that the list topic has been discussed as a distinct set: you've posted two links to databases, which might or might not be able to give the lists being discussed here as a database extract, but which certainly don't feature them as a topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See below on log page. Same may apply. (non-admin closure) J947 05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Mutant Penguins[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Attack of the Mutant Penguins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like Club Drive, this article was brought to AfD and closed as keep under shaky circumstances back in 2010 (see WP: Articles for deletion/Club Drive (2nd nomination) for the full story), and is due for reconsideration. Similar problems apply: The article has virtually no content, and the article subject has no claim to notability and very little coverage from notable/reliable sources. The article lists "Allgame review" as a source, but checking an archive of the now dead link I see Allgame in fact only had a brief synopsis of the game, no review or other significant content. Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consulted Mobygames before opening this AfD and was not impressed by the listing there. Of the 16 reviews listed, two have been determined to be unreliable, and only one has been confirmed to be reliable - GamePro, which doesn't help establish notability since during the 1990s they reviewed every single game that was released. On top of that, of the sources that haven't been determined to be unreliable, only five are in English.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources and that is not a valid deletion reason. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's not really relevant how many other games have or haven't been reviewed. I see contemporary printed magazines with editorial staff. I sort of understand your position, but I don't agree the available sources are insufficient for GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources for citing facts, not for establishing notability. A notable subject should have lots of sources in the same language; having one or two sources each in lots of languages just establishes that the subject was released in lots of different countries. In some cases being released in many countries might suggest notability, but not for a first party video game. I don't understand your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is simply not true, this is in the notability guidelines "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. The general notability guldine section (please see WP:GNG the place the quote came from) would not say that sources don't have to be in English if that guideline did not accept them in the first place. If you still insist that the notability guldelines don't allow for non English sources can you please Show where that is explictally mentioned.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not completely unambiguous that the quoted passage is saying that non-English sources establish notability on English Wikipedia in every possible case. But more importantly, quoting policy without offering any reasoning is not convincing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • There would be no reason to for the General Notability Guidlines to even meniton that sources don't need to be in English if they did not count towards notability and I doubt that anyone closing this discussion would give that view any consideration. If you seriously want to contest this the best place would be a discussion at WP:N but I can imagine that such an argument would gain any traction.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the sources listed by MobyGames are reliable per WP:VG/RS. If it got significant coverage in offline, non-English sources, that's alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll have to elaborate about these "many" sources which have been determined to be reliable; as previously noted, I checked the list and the only match I see is GamePro.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decided against a third relst; a third nomination of this article might be needed. (non-admin closure) J947 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like Club Drive, this article was brought to AfD and closed as keep under shaky circumstances back in 2010 (see WP: Articles for deletion/Club Drive (2nd nomination)), and is due for reconsideration. Similar problems apply: No claim to notability, no sources, and the only hint of coverage is unsourced scores from two Atari-specific sites. My own researches on the era have turned up nothing on the game beyond the obligatory GamePro review. --Martin IIIa (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. I don't have access to the magazines with those exact dates and IA doesn't seem to have most archived either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm even less impressed by the Mobygames listing for this game than the one for Attack of the Mutant Penguins. It actually adds to the body of evidence that this game is not notable. Only nine reviews, and when you cross off the ones from unreliable and/or foreign language sources, all you're left with is Diehard Gamefan and the obligatory GamePro review. --Martin IIIa (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources and that is not a valid deletion reason. I see contemporary printed magazines with editorial staff. I sort of understand your position, but I don't agree the available sources are insufficient for GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources for citing facts, not for establishing notability. A notable subject should have lots of sources in the same language; having one or two sources each in lots of languages just establishes that the subject was released in lots of different countries. In some cases being released in many countries might suggest notability, but not for a first party video game. Again, I don't see the level of contemporary coverage one would expect from a notable or even significant game. There are unreleased games which got more reviews than this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at it in context, it's not completely unambiguous that the part of the GNG you're talking about is saying that non-English sources establish notability on English Wikipedia in every possible case. But more importantly, linking to a policy page without addressing my reasoning is not convincing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on GamePro, GameFan, VG, and VG&CE reviews alone (if MG is to be trusted), we could support a small article on this topic. It doesn't necessitate that we should, but deletion still wouldn't be the best choice. Discuss redirect options? Perhaps it would be worth creating a page on Atari sports games where topics like this can redirect? czar 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess at this point I have to come right out and say that, while I realize this is not a popular view, I've never felt that the probable existence of sources "out there" is anywhere near as strong an argument for keeping an article as actually having content cited to notable/reliable sources in the article. It just seems like an indirect way of challenging the editor(s) favoring deletion to prove a negative. I have no idea what a worthwhile redirect for this article would be. Atari sports games doesn't strike me as a topic that we could write much about, though I'm no expert on Atari history.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Abella Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The awards that Anderson has won are not enough to show notability. The sourcing is also very lacking. This article has on occasion been deleted in the past, and there never have been any good arguments to keep it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and detail. No noteworthy creative or artistic contribution to the film industry. No encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (✉) 13:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Suleiman[edit]

Amna Suleiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She is really just the lead figure in a news article related to specific policies of the Gaza gorvernment. Her actions are not sustained or noticed enough to rise above the level of news, and this falls under Wikipedia not being a newspaper. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Suleiman is one of BBC's 100 women, and coverage of BBC 100 focuses on influential women, not on the Gazan government. The New York Times source also focuses entirely on Suleiman, with government policy as background context. New York Times plus BBC coverage of this person over 9 months apart is sustained enough for notability, especially given how few Palestinian women are individually covered in western media sources. Siko (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above from Seeeko. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BBC and New York Times references show notability. --Racklever (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Alvarez[edit]

Lester Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alvarez has not played in any league that playing in it is grounds for notability per the notability guidlines for basketball players listed at the sports notability page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (✉) 13:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Almeida[edit]

Barry Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The league that Almeida has played in requires preeminent honors for players to be notable, and he lacks such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Yet another ridiculous nomination. First sentence, "...who currently plays for Coventry Blaze in the UK's Elite Ice Hockey League". One click on Elite Ice Hockey League: "...it is the highest level of ice hockey competition in the United Kingdom." Quick check of WP:NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlendog, I didn't see the first line of NHOCKEY and the link to the list of leagues, leading to a misunderstanding. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an explicit list of what leagues qualify and the league in question is not on that list. It is PageantUpdater who is ignoring the ridiculously low criteria of notability for sports players not me. This vote should be discounted because it goes against the clearly stated policy which is an explicit list. I looked over the list twice and made sure the league he played in was bot included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He would not meet criterion #1 of WP:NHOCKEY as the UK Elite Ice Hockey League is not regarded as a "top level league" under WP:NHOCKEY/LA. But Almeida was a collegiate All-American, which satisfied criterion #4. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like the nom should have checked the entire list more carefully. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY Criteria #4 as a college All-American ice hockey player. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted as G4. Previously deleted via AfD and nothing substantial has changed. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Curtis Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The league Allen plays in is not fully professional. I actually nominated this same article for dletion last August, 4 or so other editors supported the deletion, and it was deleted. It was then recreated, so I probably could nominate it for speedy deletion, but I figure this will work too. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Article erroneously claimed Allen had played for Caley Thistle, but this is incorrect and I have now amended it. Number 57 09:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per WP:G4. He is no more notable today than he was six months ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Kitagawa[edit]

Erika Kitagawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced BLP. Even if the award passed pornbio - which is unlikely given its reputed to be an inhouse award - this is laughably poorly sourced and the GNG trumps SNGs. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ hollygrove[edit]

DJ hollygrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by IP said that the DJ was notable. It's still TOOSOON as it still fails GNG and MUSICBIO. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP How is being an official panelist at South by Southwest[1] as well as being a Producer for a Viceland show not meet criteria [2]? Correct me if I am wrong but South by Southwest Viceland and IMDb are not CREDIBLE sources? These are NOT blog posts, these are pure facts? Please help me to understand Thanx! (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work?@Magnolia677 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5888980/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1 (talk) 21:44 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Chop Not Slop Live Workshop". Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  2. ^ ""The Black Market With Michael K Williams" The Lean Scene (TV Episode 2016)". Retrieved 22 December 2016.
All three links come from the same IMDB article, which is probably self-created. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can pull a screen shot from the actual episode from the Viceland as well with scrolling credits will that work? @Magnolia677 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will it work for what? This discussion is about whether this person meets the notability requirements outlined at WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Ocean03 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @Magnolia677 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Market_The_Lean_Scene_Episode_Credits.png (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Dolls[edit]

The Devil Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:LINKFARM by being a collection of mostly internal red links. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 04:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was in a sorry state when it was nominated, but I've since cleaned it up and added sources. The best rule of thumb when finding articles is to try to spruce them up before nominating them, as AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. That said, this did give the article the needed TLC so there shouldn't be any issues with it meeting NFILM now, so no true harm done. Just be more careful next time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following User:Tokyogirl79's TLC. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Grym[edit]

J. Grym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician from a questionably notable band. Can't find any coverage of the individual from any RS, even in passing mention. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.desibeli.net/arvostelu/3854
  2. ^ https://muropaketti.com/dome/musiikki/kuudestilaukeava/tulilinjalla-vanguard
  3. ^ http://www.imperiumi.net/index.php?act=interviews&id=465
  4. ^ http://www.wacken.com/de/festivalinfo/history/woa-2004/bands/
  5. ^ http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/vanguard-books-studio-time/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Other than the two reviews the rest are either passing mentions, an overview of someones trip to a festival and a copy and pasted announcement by the person in question. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to be notable for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cevherriz Hanımefendi[edit]

Cevherriz Hanımefendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is completely unsourced and the subject doesn't seem to be notable. The main problem, however, is that this woman was probably not the wife of an Ottoman sultan. Per this discussion: User talk:Retrieverlove#Moving pages without discussion User:Retrieverlove clearly states that according to his research this lady was a treasurer or kalfa. I can't for sure say whether he's right or not. There's no obstacle in having an article about a notable imperial treasurer (as we already have), but the main issue with this article is that not even a single sentence is backed by a reliable source. So it's unsourced and provides wrong information, thus it confuses the readers and gives them wrong feedback. Apart from that it fails Wikipedia:GNG. Keivan.fTalk 12:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability if she ever existed. Info is found under another name in Alderson's "Structure of the Ottoman dynasty", not in Uluçay.--Phso2 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Neutral. Since then the article has be renamed and its content drastically changed. Not sure of the subject's notability though.--Phso2 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 07:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow further assessment of Sam Sailor's findings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor Hi. First of all I just want to say that I don't consider Russian Wikipedia a reliable source in this matter as every page about these female Ottoman figures was first created here and then a similar one was created on the Russian wiki, so they just kind of copy the articles. About the sources, I checked them and yes, her name is listed as a wife of Murad V, but that doesn't make her notable. As another user said above even if she was an Ottoman consort she wouldn't be a notable one, probably because she wasn't a chief consort or a queen mother thus there's nothing in the sources that can be used for writing a biography. And as you can see on the Russian wiki the only parts that are sourced are her dates of birth and death and the rest of the article lacks any kind of citation, probably because it's fictional, as usual. Keivan.fTalk 08:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f, I don't pretend to know the first thing about this subject area, and the language barrier means I'm not going to try to ameliorate my ignorance. :) My comment was solely meant as a FYI, as Cevher-riz Hanımefendi did return a few search results, but I trust the matter is well taken care of by you. Khodafez. — Sam Sailor 09:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, under the name "Gevherriz", she is mentioned a few times in Brooks 2010 (Brookes, Douglas Scott. The concubine, the princess, and the teacher: Voices from the Ottoman Harem. University of Texas Press, 2010.) and her ability in French seemed to give her an important role in politics, as can be seen in that book and as "Gevheriz" here (google translation). Smmurphy(Talk) 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chris troutman Do you still think that it should be deleted? The article has been moved and it seems that it's (probably) well-sourced now. I think the sources are reliable, aren't they? I just want to know your opinion. Keivan.fTalk 09:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Keivan.f: I think the sourcing is too thin to connote GNG; I take less issue with the reliability of the sources. I still support deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCloud Subs[edit]

ThunderCloud Subs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. all it gets is very routine coverage in the austin media. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No credible claim of significance in the article itself, first of all, so it could have been Speedily Deleted under WP:A7 rather than going for an AfD. Anyway, as we're here... the GNG isn't met. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing++ 12:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsar Parsian Hotel[edit]

Ramsar Parsian Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real indication of notability - and not even clear how many hotels the article is meant to be about. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is one hundred percent prominent. wikipedia not a personal problem. Jacurani (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Searching did not reveal any indication of notability. -- HighKing++ 11:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing your dont searching. Jacurani (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you anything constructive to add or are you just going to comment after every !vote and tell people they're wrong without offering (for example) a single reference that meets the criteria in WP:RS and establishes notability? -- HighKing++ 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Melini[edit]

Davide Melini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be created by an editor who may be the topic of the article as evidenced by their superlative editing skills in producing an article with no prior indications of editing. I hope I am in error. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ege Arar[edit]

Ege Arar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arar plays in the Turkish league, which is not one that grants default notability for playing. The sources otherwise are extremely weak. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Galatasaray is a fairly prominent team, which has signed many ex-NBA players over the years, so I think there's something worthwhile here. I don't really know where to begin with Turkish sources, but maybe something like this could be helpful? Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually does meet WP:NBASKETBALL as he played in Euroleague games during his time with Galatasaray. See stats here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon Sousa[edit]

Fallon Sousa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply not sufficiently notable. Though I wish her the best, her career currently consists of self-published novellas and a screenplay for a short film that is in production and that's not enough to get the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Can find no independent coverage of the subject. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO at this time. Maybe someday. Ajpolino (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a screen writer and producer who had not reached the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stone (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chris Stone (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No qualifying awards. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits (many, many spurious hits because the names he performed under were shared with other, more prominent performers). Survived 2010 AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Stone) based on scene award, which no longer establishes or counts toward notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable porn actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question could you point me towards the details about which porn awards are considered notable (or, more specifically, somewhere it was broadly agreed that the GayVN awards were not notable in this sense)? WP:PORNBIO doesn't include or link to such as list. The GayVN awards is included in pornographic film awards, as linked to by WikiProject Pornography but that only means that they're significant enough to have an article about them, not that they're significant enough to confer notability themselves. (I'm not voting yet because working through sources for a pornstar from before the internet age is always difficult. Clarity on the award's status might help matters.) Mortee (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PORNBIO says expressly that "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration", regardless of the awardgiver; the GayVN award at issue here is "Best Sex Scene". In general, whether a particular award meets the PORNBIO standards depends on both the awarding organization and the award category. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Thanks, that helps. In this case, having looked further, it makes no difference anyway. The archived version of the referenced page for the award doesn't mention him, his other psdeudonym, or the film he won for. IMDb doesn't support the claim either. There seems to be an ongoing effort to remove pornography-related articles, which bothers me on principle, but in this case I don't see a supportable claim to notability. Mortee (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:GNG fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. Previously kept due to a scene-related award win, which has since been excluded from the WP:PORNBIO guideline. Independent searches for reliable source coverage yield only trivial mentions and cast listings. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable pornography actor.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilah Parsons[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lilah Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 15#Lilah Parsons was that the previous discussion was deficient and a relist/redo the warranted remedy. No opinion myself on the propriety. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Per everything I said at DRV. Meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and definitely passes WP:BASIC. Also meets WP:ENT as she plays a significant role presenting Capital Breakfast. I also provided a few sources at the DRV that would help it establish notability. Lots more web sources are available as well. It could do with some expansion however from those who know more on the subject, as I only created the page based on what I knew of her and what sourced info was available based on the stuff I knew. Had the page failed the criteria I've listed, it would have been CSD'd when first created under A7. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying sources such as [9], [10] [11] [12] [13] and the sources already on the article fail WP:BIO?? There are also loads more mentions and coverage of Parsons on various different reliable secondary sources. Most other presenters have their own article as well. I suggest you read WP:BIO till you know it backwards. The only problem with the article is that it needs expansion with these sources. Would you also care to explain how she isn't notable?Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, where it is suggested that "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." North America1000 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Nfitz (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still feel this coverage is not the level of indepth coverage in reliable sources we need to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, but fair enough. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şehzade Sultan has closed as delete, so at least we now have only one article?  Sandstein  19:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafsa Sultan (daughter of Selim I)[edit]

Hafsa Sultan (daughter of Selim I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The material is exactly a copy of another article titled Şehzade Sultan. It isn't well-sourced and probably contains original research. Keivan.fTalk 10:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and keep. Princesses tend to be notable. There does not appear to be OR to my eye; there are sources, albeit not inline. Bottom line is, I think this is verging on an abusive AfD and very poor handling of a straightforward potential merge. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1: Although it's a duplicate, but I may also, like User:Tagishsimon, agree to keep it as Valide Hafsa Sultan seemed to have a daughter named Hafsa, but Şehzade Sultan shouldn't redirect to it because she probably never existed. Keivan.fTalk 12:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2: After reviewing the website that has been used as a source on this page, I realized that unfortunately the information is wrong. As it can be seen here Hafsa Sultan is only mentioned as a daughter of Selim I and Hafsa Valide Sultan. There's no mention of a husband or year of birth and death. According to this source the current article is actually a biography about Hafize Sultan, another daughter of Selim I by his other wife, Ayşe Hatun. So if everyone decides to keep this article then it should probably be moved and the wrong material should be corrected. Keivan.fTalk 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with changes proposed by Keivan.f. She's borderline, but given the confusion an article providing clarity about the individual is a net plus to the encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Is "sultana" not the feminine form of "Sultan"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andreas Philopater In Arabic, yes, it is (السلطانه), but the Ottomans didn't use the feminine form for the female members of the Imperial House. Thus they were called Sultan (السلطان) not Sultana, and authors also used the form that was chosen by them in their translations; so a variety of sources refer to them as Valide "X" Sultan, Haseki "Y" Sultan, etc, although in some other sources they have been referred to as Sultana as well. Keivan.fTalk 11:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-707 (S)[edit]

Yaesu FT-707 (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. This article is completely unreferenced, and largely opinion and original research; statements like "Even nowadays nice looking" and "It drifts sometimes" mean that there's nothing salvageable here. Mikeblas (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:SNOW). North America1000 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aniyan Midhun[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aniyan Midhun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC notability. Both available sources are online promotion websites of dubious credibility. No other sources can be located. - MrX 12:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - given that this was previously deleted at a prior AfD and then re-created, I recommend WP:SALTing. Neutralitytalk 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unconvincing for the applicable standards. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the notability criteria for martial artists and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is sufficient consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 05:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle Lazer[edit]

Estelle Lazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to indicate that the subject passes WP:PROF. There has been some press coverage of her work on Pompeii, but not enough to meet the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Early career academics are not usually notable, as here. TV presence not yet enough for WP:GNG WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I turned up numerous mentions in decent sources. here are a couple of pages in a book. Another book mention. Another book mention here. Mention in New Scientist. A book mention on her Antarctic work. She is quoted at length in the New York Times here. The evening Standard mentions her here. Republicca.it (Italian) mentions her Pompei work here. El Pais has something substantial here. Here is a Cambridge University-published book that devotes a few pages to her Pompei scanner work. She may not meet the pure research standard for notability, but with refs like these I believe she has met the GNG.104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think this should be judged on PROF. Her coverage in multiple third party sources obviously underlines her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As has been repeatedly pointed out the POV that she must meet PROF is misdirected. GNG requires only sufficient RS over time. There are plenty. [15], [16], [17], [18] SusunW (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SusunW: I appreciate the sentiment but in this case that POV is a strawman. I mentioned the GNG in the nomination, as did Xxanthippe, we simply disagree that Lazer meets it. If we're going to start counting passing citations to people's work as "significant coverage" we'll have to throw out WP:PROF altogether and include pretty much everyone who's ever published a scholarly paper. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I will disagree with you that there is insufficient coverage. "Estelle Lazer undertook the first modern systematic study of the human skeletal remains of the victims from Pompeii" [19] is enough to establish that she is notable, if more sources can be found, and they can. (By the by, the book sources clearly show her excavational work is NOT connected to her university work, as she works as a freelancer) In addition to the books, [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] SusunW (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all of the above claims for GNG are actually based on citations/mentions of Lazer's work, the fodder of PROF, not on pieces with biographical discussion on Lazer herself...and these citations are far below our conventional bar. I think this person will be notable, but not yet. Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment So someone could be notable in the GNG, but once WP:PROF is applied they're not? That seems to contradict the basic principle of the GNG, WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure I understand WP:PROF. For my field, at least, it's a silly criteria. 104.163.152.194 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, see DGGs comment below. PROF exists because most professors are notable under GNG because some 3rd-party publications have discussed them or their work. Many WP eds now operate on the assumption that all academics from a particular group of interest are notable per se (for example Megalibrarygirl's false conclusion below that "the first to undertake that kind of investigation makes her notable") and this seems to be nudging WP toward just being a WP:DIRECTORY. Agricola44 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough there for a start, and enough hints in the text that notability will easily be established. This is an academic working in popular field, the offline published sources appear first. The recommendation in El Pais 'a antropóloga australiana Estelle Lazer, um das maiores autoridades mundiais na análise forense da antiguidade.' alone is enough at this stage. To have your books translated into another language as stated in 'El Pais' also suggest notability. ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SusunW, anyone who was the first to undertake that kind of investigation makes her notable. However, there are also enough sources provided above to show she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep . on the basis that the book is in over 300 worldcat libraries. But in judging notability of academics, we do not count citations from other academic articles as significant for the purpose of the GNG. If we did, every person who published 2 or more papers that were cited 2 or more times would meet the GNG, which would include essentially every postdoctoral fellow in the world (and every assistant professor in the sciences). One of the reasons we have WP:PROF is to avoid this interpretation--I in fact did make this interpretation for people whom I thought important in the days before WP:PROF was firmly established. The argument succeeding nicely in getting everyone to use WP:PROF instead. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG criteria met. Hmlarson (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- notable in her space. I found some reviews:
  • The fat, hairy women of Pompeii. Dayton, Leigh. New Scientist, Sep 24, 1994; Vol. 143, No. 1944. Reports on University of Sydney archaeologist and physical anthropologist Estelle Lazer's findings that a substantial number... more
  • Researchers, Armed With CT Scanner, Set Out to Demystify Victims of Vesuvius. POVOLEDO, ELISABETTA. New York Times, Oct 06, 2015; Vol. 165, No. 57011 The article focuses on a study by researchers including Estelle Lazer, an Australian f... more
  • Art and Archaeology. Spivey, Nigel. Greece & Rome, Apr 01, 2010; Vol. 57, No. 1, p. 146-149. The article reviews several books including "Lord Elgin and Ancient Greek Architecture... (and) Resurrecting Pomepii by Estelle Lazer... more
  • Etc.
K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My impression is that she passes both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. There are several in-depth pieces specifically about her and her research in news-media, such as this ABC interview [25], this piece[26] in Australia's Science Channel, this piece [27] in the Sydney Morning Herald, for example, as well as the sources quoted by K. e. coffman above. I think that's already enough to pass WP:GNG. Regarding WP:PROF, the case for satisfying this guideline becomes more clear if one looks at the substantive content of scholarly reviews of her work (rather than, say, simply counting the number of such reviews). In particular, these reviews say that she undertook the first modern scientific study of the skeletal remains from Pompei, and dispelled some common misconceptions (e.g. debunking the presumption that most victims of Pompei were childern, elderly and the infirm); see for example the `Cold cases' section of this [28] article in World Archeology. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of the day however famous, Pompeii is just one site, and it's rare for there to be more than one osteological study from a single site anyway. So I struggle to see how being the first to do so meets PROF's criteria of making a significant contribution to a major discipline. But obviously the consensus regarding the GNG has gone against me on this one. Maybe my judgement is off because what seems routine to me as someone in the same field is significant to people with a more detached viewpoint. Lesson learned, and apologies for the time wasted! – Joe (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my impression is that PROF is not meant to imply that a research isn't notable simply because they have an h index greater than two. But it isn't meant to superseded GNG when an individual receives coverage in multiple, in depth, non-academic sources. That is, my interpretation of criteria 7, "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." is that GNG applies directly for an academic for non-academic coverage. My interpretation of criteria 1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is that to academic coverage must speak to an individual's academic impact to qualify as counting towards GNG. That is, "substantial impact outside academia" sounds to me identical to "significant coverage outside of academia" (because I think WP:IMPACT is too subjective when applied in a non-academic sense) while "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" sounds to me to be asking for a bit more (and is less subjective because academic impact can be judge based on whether or not the conclusions of one scholar are accepted as starting point of multiple pieces of independent, reliable scholarship). In this case, I think a little bit of both are true, and enough of PROF criteria 7. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satheesh Menon[edit]

Satheesh Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Most probably paid editing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Seems very innovative as the editor added Satheesh Menon's name to reference titles when the actual titles for the references had nothing to do with him. Jupitus Smart 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Chandran[edit]

Pradeep Chandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has acted in some blink and you miss roles. References are not reliable and independent as well. Jupitus Smart 11:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VA-55[edit]

VA-55 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambig page with only one valid blue link TheMagikCow (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I first looked at this there were no totally valid entries - the first was valid as a redlink which needed a blue link added from 'What links here' and a blue link which was invalid as the link didn't mention 'VA-55'. As the first was notable and had incoming links, I created a stub. As the second is known as VA-55, I added this to article with a reference. Took 10 mins, but is now a valid dab. TheMagikCow, as it's changed so much since your nomination, would you like to continue or withdraw the nomination? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Withdrawn: Ahh thanks for catching that! Sorry! TheMagikCow (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio (singer)[edit]

Claudio (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline as is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The pistacubana refs are mostly chart listings, sufficient to reference that some of Claudio's songs entered the "top 100" or "Top 40" in particular weeks, but not otherwise providing any detailed coverage of the artist. The other sources for the article are primary(eg. Youtube, Facebook).

Also broadly fails WP:MUSICBIO - while some tracks have appeared on Cuban radio, there is:

  • No evidence of significant music sales;
  • No awards or international tours
  • No indication that he is part of an otherwise notable ensemble, or regarded as representative of a genre or musical innovation.

All views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The YouTube references need checking to see if they are primary or secondary sources. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two YouTube links are nothing more than Claudio's songs. Apart from supporting the existence of those two songs (in which case they count as primary sources), the videos do not give any information about Claudio himself and are thus useless as sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are a few passing mentions in chart listings as Euryalus said, but the subject lacks significant biographical coverage as required by WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harsha Kumar Dasgupta[edit]

Harsha Kumar Dasgupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence of notability by the general guideline and none at all by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not a notable individual. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Business Information[edit]

Reed Business Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic fails WP:CORP in that reliable, secondary sources contain only trivial and/or incidental coverage of this organization. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I trust that the closing administrator will assign appropriate weight to comments that actually address the criteria for Notability vs. those that do not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is clearly a notable company. Article should be improved with more citations, not deleted. A P Monblat (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Subsidiary of a company with 30000 employees.  AfD has no role here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suggest discussion of reliable source material or redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reed Business Information faces scrutiny over sanctions. MAY 1, 2014 by: Cynthia O’Murchu and Melissa Hancock. UK authorities have been probing past transactions between a division of Anglo-Dutch publisher Reed Elsevier and Iranian banks, to consider whether sanctions may have been breached. (...) RBI and US-based Accuity – which its parent Reed Elsevier acquired at the end of 2011 – operate together as Accuity and sell databases such as Bankers Almanac. That database allows clients to find and validate bank payment routing data and share their own payment information."
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. Article needs improving to include more references. -- HighKing++ 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 21:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European diaspora[edit]

European diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

possibly too much WP:OR or just not notable Prisencolin (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I may have set this AfD in motion in December when I questioned whether reliable sources refer to a "European diaspora". With one notable exception, I haven't been able to find reliable sources that use the phrase, and the article seemed to be a cobbled-together "me too" article that was intended to stand alongside well-studied subjects such as African diaspora and Jewish diaspora. In the past week, however, an editor has begun to rewrite the article, using reliable sources, to focus on the subject of "European emigration". I'd like to give her or him more time before deleting the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per Malik Shabazz. The article was a conflation of European colonisation of 'The New World' and early modern to modern history. The editor currently working on the article is focussing on the post-colonial period. Dependent on how disentangling the OR and SYNTH from the article goes, it may end up as a decent article (possibly in need of a tweak to the TITLE). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep echoing what has been said above. Let's give the current efforts a chance to make this article work. Lepricavark (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then, now that the question of notability seems to be out of the way, I guess I'm willing to Withdraw with afd.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947 18:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Tube[edit]

Dead Tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this manga's article for deletion is somewhat disappointing considering I read it (or at least I used to). But the manga lacks significant coverage in reliable sources in either English or Japanese; a search for English sources resulted mostly in the usual illegal scanlation sites, while a search for Japanese sources failed to find any significant coverage either. I couldn't even find sales figures for the manga. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources given below, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. However, this is not to be taken as a withdrawal of the AfD. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, those sources didn't appear in my search. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah one aspect of google is that results are tailored towards your location, though searching on google.fr, Planet BD only shows up on the third page of results so the sites don't have great search rankings anyway. I might recommend instead using Gwern's custom google search made for the wikiproject, where Manga News is the third result, but Planete BD isn't there. The way I found these was by searching each site in the French list of the WikIProject page using the site: feature of google. So most important of all was knowing that it was licensed, which I learned from the frwiki article. Opencooper (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any news articles over at ANN for this subject or the usual critics. Can you confirm whether Natalie, Planete BD and Manga News actually critique the show and not just preview/announce it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie just has announcements about the manga (it's more of a news site than original reviews). But yes I can confirm that the other two sources have reviews: The Manga News reviews are from the MN team (with multiple reviews per volume), and the Planete BD reviews are split into two parts, "L'histoire" (the story) and "Ce qu'on en pense sur la planète BD" (what we think at Planet BD) While I cannot speak French, putting the pages through Google translate does seem to confirm that these are reviews and not just plot summaries. For whatever reason ANN has not picked up the series: most likely because it hasn't charted and because they are limited to translating news about the most popular/NA-licensed manga due to resource constraints. Opencooper (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally I take European licenses to be good indications of notability. France and Italy arguably have better historical publishing of manga and anime than the combined US and UK markets and I'm usually inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for ongoing and longer works. In this case there is enough to go on.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USA Softball Minnesota[edit]

USA Softball Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet requirements for WP:ATH Rogermx (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undetermined, leaning towards Keep Being an affiliate of USA softball, and being at the state level might pass N. ATH is sufficiently vague, that I'm neither getting a keep nor a delete vibe from those policies. ATH doesn't have a section that covers amateur governign bodies at the state level, everything that might point to it shunts me to GNG. GNG vagueness however doesn't specifically say Delete, as I interpret it to allow organisations like this. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSU Computer Science Department[edit]

OSU Computer Science Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual university departments have never been considered notable here except in special cases, or if they are one of the two or three most famous in the world in their subject. According to the article, this particular department is one of the two best--in Oregon. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - individual univrsity departments do not usually qalify for a stand alone article. Looking at the article, this appears to be a department of a department. That's certainly too far removed to jusstify an article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please DON'T delete - I feel like you'd be misrepresenting this particular university. To name a few departments that are not the most famous in the world, the University of Illinois at Urbana, University of Maryland, Stanford University, Carnegie Mellon, University of California, University of Washington and the University of Oregon all have their respective "Computer Science" department pages. This particular university, Oregon State, was known for graduating two alumni from the program- the inventor of the computer mouse and the founder of nVidia. I'd say that is notable enough to at least have a page stub.

If you want, you can throw all the info on this page to the OSU College of Engineering, however, there are a ton of different departments there that haven't been properly developed yet. It's up to you guys on how you want to structure the pages, however, it took some time to make this page, so I'd appreciate it if you kept my work the way it is or moved it to another page.

Thanks for your consideration and for trying to make Wikipedia a better place! : ) Mr.oppa.2 01:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Alger[edit]

Brittney Alger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alger has played a lot of bit roles, but nothing significant. That is not enough to make her a notable actress. Beyond this the only sources are twitter and IMBd, neither of which is a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • She's a Maxim cover girl,[29] has had multiple significant roles in productions like The Demented (lead actress), Justin Morelli's song Nobody Like Me (paired opposite Justin). Yet, there's no significant coverage on her life. In my opinion, there's possibility of such sources coming up, but can't say, so am neutral. Lourdes 06:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – she's not the "lead actress" in The Demented (which I have seen) – IIRC she gets killed less than halfway through that movie – the lead in The Demented is Kayla Ewell (with Sarah Butler been the second lead female – so Alger's third). And if The Demented is her most "significant role" (as it appears to be), then this subject is not even in the ballpark of passing WP:NACTOR. The lack of sourcing at the article also indicates this will be a clear WP:GNG fail, which it is – she has zero mentions in Variety. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Maybe userfy in the creator's namespace. She might get there eventually. Montanabw(talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Alemán[edit]

Fausto Alemán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication he has played in a fully professional league. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 13 appearances in Ascenso MX listed in WP:FPL meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this footballer. It's clear he played a few matches in the Ascenso MX, but his football career appears to either be over or he is now focused on beach soccer (which garners far less coverage). I'm not convinced this article would ever satisfy the GNG - he's mentioned in a handful of match reports (receiving a red card, making the substitute's bench, etc.), but it's entirely routine coverage. Jogurney (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Notability is not temporary. He was notable when he made his debut, and he's still notable now. Smartyllama (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTTEMPORARY isn't relevant here. It only applies once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" - and nobody has put forward evidence that this footballer ever was the subject of significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa (singer)[edit]

Aleksa (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the article it appears that she was on one singing show, this is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reference in article isn't dedicated. Only one unpromising reference produced by search tools at top of page. Non-notable. Delete. Tapered (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure). One of a number of poorly-researched noms started by User:Johnpacklambert in recent days. I would caution JPL to better familiarize himself with BEFORE, NSPORTS and other policies and guidelines before continuing to nominate articles for deletion, especially at the pace he's doing it. pbp 18:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahidul Alam (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Shahidul Alam (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    He has not played in a fully professional league and thus does not pass the notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also as a note Shahidul Alam is a different person from another Bengladeshi goalkeeper named Shahidul Yousuf Sohel also known as Mohammad Shahidul Alam. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - with international appearances, easily passes the notability guideline for football players. User:Johnpacklambert why have you nominated this? Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a senior international fixture for his country on more than one occasion. Pointless nomination. Kosack (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as a Bangladeshi international he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - per all above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Sanchez (ice hockey)[edit]

    Paul Sanchez (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations, and for players competing on national teams that play far below the top pool at the Worlds/Olympics, the only level for which NHOCKEY accords presumptive notability. Therefore fails WP:GNG per only citing WP:ROUTINE sources. AaronWikia (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The subject satisfies #6 of NHOCKEY, the phrasing of the term does not exclude players who competed in official tournaments other than worlds or the Olympics. The Winter Asian Games is a regional sanctioned tournament. However the article is poorly sourced and includes claims (some of which would imply notability, such as being the top scorer in the nation) are not in the source. Article has WP:OR issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboneagle927 (talk • contribs) 07:32, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. DrStrauss talk 13:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is now sourced stating that it was the Philippines first international tournament and that he not only lead the team in scoring but the entire tournament. Doing this in his first year as a rookie is an extreme accomplishment and if he continues at his current level he will be a lock for the Philippines Sports Hall of Fame. This will meet a two of the requirements of NHOCKEY, judging by other players on that site is more than enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc1491 (talk • contribs) 14:51, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No, this doesn't meet criterion #6, and we long since started to steam up at how many times we've had to tweak the criteria against each fresh attempt to abuse it or reinterpret it. Criterion #6, from original intent through eternal consensus, has always referred to the top pool at the Worlds only. Ravenswing 20:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In no way meets criteion #6, it is for events "such as" the Olympics, or, a linked term, that if clicked on explains that it currently includes the top 16 nations in the world. This is rather specific, but does leaves it open to other tournaments that could be argued to be "such as". A list that has two tournaments, that only the top few nations play in, does not include just any sanctioned event that occurs.18abruce (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Non-notable hockey player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Ernest Biala[edit]

    Marc Ernest Biala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Person in the page requests for privacy, person is myself, article is not reflective of my correct biography and has no significance for internet publication Dr.biala (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Creating deletion discussion for Marc Ernest Biala Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Ernest Biala

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy delete - Requested by subject of article (who is also nominator) and Wikipedia is not the only source of information out there. The subject IS notable by our beauty pageant standards (and a heck of a lot more interesting than yer usual grinning ninny who gets an article simply for being able to smile while walking in heels at the same time) but as he requests deletion, I am happy to support his request. Mabalu (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Saran DramaSchool[edit]

    Saran DramaSchool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No indication he has been in multiple notable productions let alone had significant roles in such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am tagging this for speedy. There are hardly any reliable sources and the one that exists states the the subject is an "upcoming" artist (seems to be WP:TOOSOON). Also, what kind of a name is "Saran DramaSchool"? Seems like an advertisement for something. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Lambert (hurler)[edit]

    Simon Lambert (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    One source will never be enough to pass GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. @Johnpacklambert: This deletion nomination comes across as assessing notability only based upon the state of sourcing that was in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion (diff), rather than upon availability of sources. Note that per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main notability guideline page, topic notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Note that the most cursory of Google searches has provided articles such as [31], [32] and [33] in seconds. North America1000 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- the present sourcing does not convince me in terms of notability or significance. Winning the Dublin Senior Hurling Championship is insufficient in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strike as the nomination has been withdrawn. I also note that I concur with the nom that sports-specific guidelines are too lax. For example, a technical pass of WP:PORNBIO would not guarantee that the article is kept. I believe that same should apply to sports biographies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:NGAELIC.3: Hurlers who have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship. He played in several matches for the Dublin inter-county hurling team.
      Why didn't the nominator read WP:NSPORTS before nominating? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general thegeneral notability guidelines trump sport specific guidelines. So the fact that I was aware of the notability guidelines for sports can not overcome the fact that the general notability guidelines are not met with one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - failure to provide a valid deletion rationale. Hack (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw I see now that this person meets a specific set of notability criteria. At the same time I would point out that this article highlights that something needs to be changed in Wikipedia. It has been tagged as needing additional souces since 2008. That is for over 8 years. This is a biography of a living person where we need to be extra vigilant to not let stand unsouced material. Beyond this I would point out it is very frustrating when people ask "what one source". I was refering to the one source that existed in the article at the time I nominated it for deletion which is what the question I was responding to explicitly addressed. My underlying point is rhat if you read any notability guideline it most often says that the people in question are presumed to pass GNG even if the spur es are hard to find. However no where does anything indicate it. My point in my response to BHG was not to try and argue that this article should be deleted but to argue that it is possuble to hold the view and article should be deleted while having full knowledge of the sport specific guidelines in play. That was my point because I was responding to the question at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Northamerica1000 and BrownHairedGirl, as he appears to meet the WP:NGAELIC requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CLMD[edit]

    CLMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Nothing indicated that subject passes our notability guidelines for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, passes guidelines with flying colours. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniyar Akhmetov[edit]

    Daniyar Akhmetov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    His level of play is not high enough to grant default notability. The sources are not enough to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Satomi Akesaka[edit]

    Satomi Akesaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The sources are a collection of blogs and PR announcements, not the type of sources needed to show notability and pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 21:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Akers[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Stephen Akers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Akers has not played on a team in a fully professional league. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: Nfitz (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawal I see my logic is flawed. I had focused too much on that Akers is currently in a league that is no where near fully prifessional. I should have better taken into account the fact that football play progession is non linear. I did not link to the orevious discussion because it was under a different spelling. I should have checked the talk page but I figured any previous AfD would be under the same name. This is an overlook of a step I should have done. I could point out that most talk pages do not say anything substantive burlt I still shoyld have checked it and hope people will forgive me for this ovwrsight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hayley Aitken[edit]

    Hayley Aitken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is sourced to a myspace account and to a link to listen to a work by Aitken. None of the sources are remotely close to being reliable indepdent sources that would show the coverage neccesary to demonstrate that she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    JCSP re[edit]

    JCSP re (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    non-notable RJFJR (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete seems a student project ten years ago? Already a mention of it in JCSP so nothing to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was WP:SNOW keep.. Leaving this open for any length of time longer would not change the obvious consensus that is keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Babatunde Aiyegbusi[edit]

    Babatunde Aiyegbusi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Aiyegbusi was in some pre-season games, but never in a regular season NFL game, so fails that notability. His WWE performance has also not risen to the level of notability. The sources are either weak or only have passing mentions of him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 12:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 12:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Agre[edit]

    Denis Agre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Agre has only played in leagues that do not confer notability for playing. The coverage of him is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Agre is semi notable player in Bulgaria , he is playing for the league champion and record title holders . He is not the brightest player , but i believe that this page is not for deletion .Me4osmsa (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Limited government[edit]

    Limited government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Mostly written like an essay and unsourced, much of this is already covered in the small government article, I don't see a need to merge because I perceive POV issues here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Agree that this article needs serious improvement. It has previously been proposed for merger with Small government or Minarchism, which have their own problems. The actual process of adding improvements is likely to be somewhat difficult because of partisan views on the issue. I'd much rather see the article improved than deleted, but agree that it cannot stand as-is. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Limited and small government are very different concepts. The article needs to be re-written and sourced properly, but deleting it, or merging it with an article addressing a related but distinct concept, seems to me to be a fairly extreme way of addressing the article's poor quality. Hayek79 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After Hayek79's removal of unsourced OR, this article is a mere stub of a stub, but still worth keeping and improving. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with thanks to Hayek79 for cutting it down ot a stub. "limited government" and "small government" are not the same. "Limited government" is a term of art in political theory. Now let us pray that some good editor, or perhaps a candidate for a degree in political theory procrastinating when he should be finishing his thesis, will expand and improve this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 21:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maksim Agapov[edit]

    Maksim Agapov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    As far as I can tell Agapov has not appeared in a fully professional league and thus does not pass the notability guidelines for football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Has appeared for his country's national team (multiple times I might add) and thus satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - with 10 international appearances, easily passes the notability guideline for football players. User:Johnpacklambert why have you nominated this? Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: Nfitz (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what more I can say since I have withdrawn the nomination and in the initial one explained that I was nominating it because the leagues he played in were not fully professional. I overlooked the nature of his international play in that assassement. I should have looked into that before the nomination and ask forgiveness dor making this nomination by only focusing on his league play.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - player is in double figures for senior international caps so passes WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. Kosack (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw I am sorry I missed the part about national team membership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Great Razooly[edit]

    The Great Razooly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Very little credible claim of significance. The one reference does not refer to the subject. Google search identifies that the subject is real, that is, that someone uses this moniker, but that is about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete lack of refs means non notable. Not sure how this ended up in the artists sort.104.163.140.193 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Víctor M. Marroquín[edit]

    Víctor M. Marroquín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There are multiple assertions of notability in the edit summaries, but after many years no one has been able to add multiple citations to independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find anything myself. Maybe there are Spanish language sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete none of his positions or awards are such to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (provisional). I can't see notability at present but could change my mind. Legal threats are a worry. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Philippines Earth 2009#Placements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Grezilda Adelantar[edit]

    Grezilda Adelantar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Adelantar was not a national winner in a significant beauty pageant. She was a runner up and the coverage is the short and shallow coverage we get for such people that is not enough to pass the GNG and show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BLP1E (where the 1E is not itself significant, actually). Guy (Help!) 14:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Adeel pk[edit]

    Adeel pk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Emerging filmmaker for whom there is no evidence that they are notable yet John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - autobio. Doesn't pass the WP:BIO criteria yet. --Saqib (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the available coverage is of the offspring-of-famous-parent-getting-started-in-the-trade tendency. As to the article text, it is encrusted with promotion. Whether or not the subject is "all set to engage audiences with his tricky cinematography and modern-day filmmaking techniques" that is WP:CRYSTAL text; as things stand, the subject meets none of the WP:FILMMAKER criteria, nor broader WP:BASIC notability. AllyD (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Len Forkas[edit]

    Len Forkas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:BIO. Lots of fluffy promotional language in peacock terminology. Practically an advertisement. Edison (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete overly promotional article showing no substance for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was hired years ago by WikiExperts to write this article. (I had since announced my CoI when the Terms of Use changed.) This article was perfectly acceptable had it been left as I wrote it. Sadly, SPAs JustPixels and Lenforkas defaced what I wrote into this promotional mess. I recommend Wikipedia block the both of them for being undisclosed paid editors. I don't care what happens to this article. I got paid very little to write it and that money has already been spent. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 03:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Wylde[edit]

    Adam Wylde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A local broadcast personality with no widespread notability. The one source is a PR report on a fundraiser that mentions Wylde as one of the co-hosts. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Acourt[edit]

    Kim Acourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There are not enough sources to show she is notable. Nothing she has done constitutes a clear pass of notability guidelines for models. The article has been tagged as needing more sources since 2013 and shows no signs of improving. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete playboy and a shitty tabliod do not blp level sourcing make, Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 18:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Farukh Abitov[edit]

    Farukh Abitov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The sources do not demonstate that Abitov has ever played in a game that would cause him to pass football notability. Clearly none of the teams he has played with are in fully pro leagues. The article does not have sources to demonstrate that any games he played with the Kyrgystan National Team are at a level to make him notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - this nomination is ridiculous. The article clearly states he has over a dozen national team caps. And it takes about 1 second to confirm this with in English with Google. Why User:Johnpacklambert have you done an AFD, rather than simply adding a reference? Nfitz (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably with numerous senior international caps. Lazy nomination. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - the above votes sum it up pretty well. A player with 15 official appearances for their national team passes WP:NFOOTY without question. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep per above. Numerous appearances for a national team. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep per above. Nominator shouldn't need more warnings about inappropriate AFDs --- PageantUpdater (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 13:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Phillip Gillespie[edit]

    Phillip Gillespie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Withdrawn by nominator - after work done by Ianblair23, meets GNG.Onel5969 TT me 12:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fails WP:GNG. He's an accomplished cricket umpire, but there's no special notability guideline for umpires. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete a non-notable cricket umpire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep and close, clearly meets both WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. He is member of the 12 man Australian National Umpire Panel. I have expanded this article from a one line stub to the state it is in now. Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Great expansion work by Ianblair23. Now demonstrably meets the GNG and always met CRIN. Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article lacks sufficient notability for a standalone encyclopedia article at this time. The title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Peckarsky[edit]

    Peter Peckarsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, significant support. reddogsix (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Even if he had received a lot of votes he would not be notable, but with 0 he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Number of votes received doesn't contribute to notability one way or the other. The lack of sources covering him in any detail demonstrate the lack of notability though. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, although I tried to make some minor improvements to this article, I am unfortunately going to have to say delete on this one as his only claim to fame was a fringe candidacy for Democratic National Committee Chair in 2017 in which he garnered zero votes.--TommyBoy (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete insufficient refs with which to create an NPOV article; WP is not a directory. original speedy was correct and was incorrectly removed. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I would be fine with a redirect to Democratic_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2017#Declared_candidates. Brianga (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect I agree with Brianga. The article really has no standing by itself. The redirect seems appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedily deleted by Edgar181 per creator's request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Eiro. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Natsumi Horiguchi[edit]

    Natsumi Horiguchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Adult Broadcating Awards are given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver; while appearing in a video which wins a porn award makes no more than a negligible contribution to notability.. No biographical content. No reliable sourcing beyond databases; the Tokyo Reporter describes itself as "scurrilous" and has been characterized as a "hybrid of the National Enquirer, the New York Post and Penthouse. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete blps require unshit sourcing, Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I just added that she's the main actress in a recent drama film named after her, Natsu Left Home. --Gstree (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    source? Notability? Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spartaz: I added this work too the article before I mentioned it here. She worked with the director Hideo Jojo. --Gstree (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    how is the film notable? Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have pointed this out to the nominator several times, but the nominator's description of the award is wrong. The nominator has offered no evidence that the award is as he or she describes. As is described in this major news source [47], it is an award that covers nearly 10,000 programs that were carried on SkyPerfecTV. SkyPerfecTV is the main satellite broadcaster in Japan and it carries hundreds of channels which are operated by other companies (including Fox, BBC, etc.). The award does not cover "its own programming" but merely programs that the channels programmed. It would be the equivalent of DirecTV or Sky sponsoring an award for programs broadcast on HBO, AMC, or the BBC. I have no opinion yet on this individual actress, but I would ask the nominator to stop mischaracterizing the award or at least offer proof that my evidence is incorrect. Michitaro (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- yet another poorly sourced article by the same article creator. No indications of notability of importance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Minor awards with no reliable sources, failing both PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 08:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 03:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Ferris[edit]

    Mark Ferris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable YouTube personality lacking significance. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Murray (rugby league)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Daniel Murray (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:RLN as he has not yet made his professional debut. PROD was contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 01:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Has not played in the two professional leagues in England. He has played in the semi-professional League One, but the prevision revision of RLN did not support that as grounds for article creation, nor does the current iteration.Fleets (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Are Bradford not a professional club? I have made a comment on the talk page for WP:RLN as it would seem that now more clubs are professional in the Championship that a player who is in that competition should be notable. I imagine all the Hull KR players have pages, but would those who play for Rochdale? Surely someone who has played many games in the Championship is more notable than someone who has made a single appearance in the early round of the Challenge Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - Professional debut for a pro club in a pro league.Fleets (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP:RLN currently stands, playing for a pro club in the Championship still fails. – skemcraig⊗ 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A compromise would be to get the stakeholder, ie the article creator, to properly source the article and thus remove any other steps for others like pulling together a comprehensive RLN proposal revision in a day, or requesting the editor who nominated it to close down the nomination.Fleets (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An easy delete; poorly formatted, very poorly sourced and the player has not (yet?) done anything notable. Mattlore (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:RLN; Bradford's professional status is irrelevant, the fact is that they don't play in the Super League. Number 57 22:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Professional player playing for a professional team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Liam Bent[edit]

    Liam Bent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    PROD contested without issue being resolved. The player fails WP:RLN as has yet to make professional debut. – skemcraig⊗ 01:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Has not played in the two professional leagues in England. He has played in the semi-professional League One, but the prevision revision of RLN did not support that as grounds for article creation, nor does the current iteration.Fleets (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He has played for Halifax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [48] shows he has played not played professional, but the semi-pro League One. I cannot find a source that says he has played more than a pre-season friendly for Halifax.Fleets (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear delete as above. Mattlore (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Re-create if and when he plays for Salford in the Super League. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:RLN. Number 57 22:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Plays for a professional club in a professional league. Chocolatebareater (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately the only records show him playing in the semi-professional League One. That is the way that competition is viewed on wikipedia.Fleets (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kimika Ichijō[edit]

    Kimika Ichijō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Claimed awards are given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver; while the other award is so lacking in significance that there appears to be no RS documentation of the award's selection criteria, even in the native-language sources which document its mere existence. No biographical content. No reliable sourcing beyond databases; other source is promotional award announcement. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete source it or lose it. Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I just added that she's a jpop singer too. --Gstree (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    what are the sources? Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spartaz: Please see the article again, I just updated the reference. --Gstree (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- no notability established nor found. Specific the above discussion on being a pop singer, the band in question is non notable and the citation is to the band's web site:

    References

    1. ^ http://sexy-j.jp/common/member/memKimika.html
    K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have pointed this out to the nominator several times, but the nominator's description of the award is wrong. The nominator has offered no evidence that the award is as he or she describes. As is described in this major news source [49], it is an award that covers nearly 10,000 programs that were carried on SkyPerfecTV. SkyPerfecTV is the main satellite broadcaster in Japan and it carries hundreds of channels which are operated by other companies (including Fox, BBC, etc.). The award does not cover "its own programming" but merely programs that the channels programmed. It would be the equivalent of DirecTV or Sky sponsoring an award for programs broadcast on HBO, AMC, or the BBC. I have no opinion yet on this individual actress, but I would ask the nominator to stop mischaracterizing the award or at least offer proof that my evidence is incorrect. Michitaro (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: He's talking to you. --Gstree (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gstree, you know I responded to this question in another AFD; an editor is under no obligation to reply to the same question, over and over, if it's posted in multiple places. The intent of such overposting is usually to harass, and pinging demands to respond again and again is just further harassment. Saying that SkyPerfect isn't promoting the programming and channels it charges viewers to access because it only sells them, and didn;t produce them, is like saying Pathmark's "cheese of the month" isn't promotional because the grocer didn;t milk thew cows itself. It's an exceptionally foolish argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Wintrob[edit]

    Jay Wintrob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Some editors think the bio "blatantly passes" [50] but others think "probably don't need articles for four [Oaktree] executives" [51]. My own opinion is perhaps a footnote to a notable company but does not rise to own article per WP:BIO. There seems to be a creeping interpretation of WP:ANYBIO such that CEOs of big firms are considered notable without evidence, but I challenge this idea, as I think did Scope creep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Jacobson (CEO). This article is sourced to stuff like his congregation's newsletter, which does not, I think, meet the spirit of GNG. - Brianhe (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: my search for reliable independent sources gave hundreds of results in different languages. But more interestingly maybe, it showed that this person was already "blatantly" notable even before joining Oaktree. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Passed over to be CEO, AIG's life insurance head resigning which mentions his name and title but very little else? That's what I'm finding in a basic WP:BEFORE. - Brianhe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of the opinion that being one of the 2 contenders to lead the World's 40th largest company is indeed a clear sign of notability. Todd Martin lost the 2 Grand Slam finals he played, but he is notable nonetheless. Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia, so we have to talk about business. And we need to find other ways to fight COIs than just deleting articles about blatantly notable topics. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    COI hasn't been mentioned here so I'm not sure why it's coming up now. It still seems that you are drawing upon a non-existent "big firm CEO" automatic notability. There is no such guideline or consensus. Todd Martin is WP:OTHERSTUFF and orthogonal to the discussion. Brianhe (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in the first sentence of this AfD. Which by the way you wrote. And I thank you for this link, which indeed gives some context to the AfD and the PROD that preceded it. For the rest, WP:GNG is what I am drawing upon. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the coverage is just passing mentions and not substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - notability is weak. A mention at Oaktree Capital would be appropriate, but there's not enough reliable info for a standalone article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - coverage seems to all be of the WP:ROUTINE variety, along with listings and simple mentions.Onel5969 TT me 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    National Gazetteer (for Scotland)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    National Gazetteer (for Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No reliable sources found for establishing notability. The October 2008 AfD was closed as "speedy keep" for being nominated by a banned user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment this is notable in itself but the article should be redirected to One Scotland Gazetteer and someone (bagsy no' me) should expand it, ensuring it's properly referenced. Quetzal1964 18:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

    Comment agree with Quetzal1964. Dalliance (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep seems to be the only sensible decision to end the AFD. The topic was moved during this AFD to One Scotland Gazetteer, which commenters are suggesting should be kept. Was there a "bad" page deserving to be deleted? If there was, it must have secretly been deleted. Currently the AFD is about the page which people want to keep. --doncram 22:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A notable gazetteer. At the time of nomination the article was just a stub without sources but I think the article has been expanded enough and sources added to verify the details of this significant national dataset. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I mean if it is notable, why aren't there any articles about it? There isn't a single article in The Guardian or even technical journals or whatever describing this entity. It's all just government references which is naval-gazing. The one non-government ref is a book, which appears to to contain just one passing reference to the entity. How does this meet WP:GNG? It doesn't meet GNG.
    On the other hand, the article is not hurting anyone, and it seems a nice article with the sort of information an encyclopedia might have, I guess. I'm an inclusionist so I'm fine with the article existing and not going to vote either way; WP:GNG was made for us not us for GNG, and to my mind the fact that it's an OK article and not a mess matters quite a bit (although it's not supposed to in these discussions). Just pointing out that it probably doesn't meet our standards, FWIW. Herostratus (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramprakash[edit]

    Ramprakash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A disambiguation page with only two links isn't really necessary. The two pages linked also have hatnotes, which should suffice. Nerd1a4i (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There's one more Ramprakash (Ramprakash Mehra) and half a dozen Ram Prakashes [52] that could be added as well. – Uanfala (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding that this is not a disambiguation page, but a name article, and these are generally kept if they include at least two entries (see WP:APONOTE). – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ProcessModel[edit]

    ProcessModel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This content was repeatedly declined as a draft, as there's no in-depth coverage in the citations provided. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for detailed information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mimics (video game)[edit]

    Mimics (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    unremarkable app that launched this month - may be a case of TOOSOON ... not broad coverage in RS DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as failing WP:GNG with too few reliable secondary independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Terrible name to search, but no obvious hits beyond those already in article. PG review is good. TA is too short. This may get more reviews, but is currently WP:TOOSOON. May be userfy for the author. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not enough sourcing to meet the GNG. The only 2 sources I could find are the two in the article, which are reliable, but don't really provide significant coverage. One is really short and one is okay, but hardly something you can write an article around. Usually I'd prefer to merge/redirect in cases like this, but it doesn't seem like any sort of notable series/developer/publisher/other articles exists in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Omar El Atmas[edit]

    Omar El Atmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    An under sourced article on a squash player. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shiamara Almeida[edit]

    Shiamara Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Almeida has been involved in a significant way only in youth volleyball competition this is not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Antoniades[edit]

    Christina Antoniades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is totally failing GNG, it has one reference which is a PDF showing who competitors are. I was unable to find any special inclusion criteria for acrobatic gymnastics competitions, so I see no reason to keep the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aram Aprahamian[edit]

    Aram Aprahamian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article has no sources of any kind. Beyond this, the legue Aprahamian plays in does not gaurantee notability for playing, so no indication he would be notable lacking a lot of sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tayyab Aslam[edit]

    Tayyab Aslam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The page lacks sources to pas WP:GNG. I can not find any special rules for squash that might allow for an exception to WP:GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristo Aab[edit]

    Kristo Aab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Basketball has a fairly high number of leagues that qualify one for automatic notability, Aab played in none of them and there is a clear lack of sources to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_26&oldid=1142619120"