Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 June	12 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedied as a copyvio of syedather.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-short-paragraph-on-hard-work-is-key.html?m=1 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hardwork is the key to success[edit]

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

See Wikipedia is not essays. Not an appropriate encyclopedic article. Only a statement of opinion. See also the original research policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all of the above points. Article is unsalvageable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 10:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backwoods Camp[edit]

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

Somehow this was kept in a 2011-12 AfD despite there being no objection to deletion. It should have been deleted then, but let's take care of it now since those concerns are still valid today. This camp has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the simple reason it fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Frankly this might even meet some speedy delete criteria as the description itself doesn't seem to assert any notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhagwan Mahaveer Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense to redirect a title somewhere it's not mentioned. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. Just another business venture. Loopy30 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with Bhagwan Mahaveer Sanctuary and Mollem National Park —IM3847 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The camp is not part of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. This appears to be a low-profile promotional piece for a commercial outfit. There is no basis for merging to Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. --Bejnar (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- spam, with content such as "A visit to Backwoods is a reliable way for birders to see the elusive Sri Lanka frogmouth!" No need for a redirect or a merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Loren Sandford[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this author or any of their works. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Delete The article makes no claim to notability. John Loren Sandford fails WP:AUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A rather useless place-holder, hardly even a stub. I will reconsider if this is expanded (let me know). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been dispatched by PROD (and possibly even A7, though it is a old, so probably best not to try CSD). Regardless, no claim of notability made in the article and no sourcing found that would establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Wee[edit]

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

Non-notable singer who lost a competition. No coverage and virtually no rs. Searched by all three versions of her name and came up with only youtube videos and primary sources with no actual coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not satisfying our basic policies as this person don't meet GNG or BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet GN Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semford Football Academy[edit]

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

Not notable football club (and no links to article). Qed237 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RK Steel FC[edit]

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

Non notable football club Qed237 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAME FC[edit]

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

Non notable football club Qed237 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, no evidence of notability, that I can see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 International U-15 Football Tournament (Vietnam)[edit]

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

A short discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football ended withonly one comment that it was not notable because there is not enough reliable sources for it to pass WP:GNG so I think it should be deleted. Qed237 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable invitational friendly youth grade tournament. No notable sustained coverage and not changing the face of world football. ClubOranje^T 06:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khing jus wurk[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Article is entirely sourced to blogs, press releases and otherwise non-notable sources. I can find nothing in the way of coverage in news and nothing in books. The claim that his single topped any charts is only sourced to a blog and no charts report anything of the sort. This is about as close to being a hoax as it can possibly get. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2] This are the two links verifying the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenna.williams (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Digital Radio Tracker". www.digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
^ "Digital Radio Tracker". www.digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 11 June 2017.

- — Note to closing admin: Jenna.williams (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, non-notable musician who fails to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Not everyone connected to the music business is notable. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Your right not everyone is notable in the music business and no he doesn't not fail to meet the requirements the Bold textDRT Digital Radio Tracker^[1]^[2] are a verified system that monitors plays from artist around the globe. And this article isn't just stating that he is an rap artist its stating he is an entertainer with purpose. In the podcast, videos even opening up for Cory Gunz are all facts that are verified. You take XXXTentacion or Robb Banks these pages are empty and based upon the same type reference facts. At least Khing Jus Wurk has actual chart positions with such artist as Usher_(musician) and Iggy Azalea who are notable artist he was under Iggy on the Charts . He also has the pod cast with EPN Network as well as with Vents Magazine^[3] which is a major publication, you can google Khing Jus Wurk and see the effect he has had and will have on the entertainment industry as a whole. He isn't just and musician and he proves that, why isn't his story one that should not be heard. Its understood that not all Black Entertainers will be a stereotype here is one proving that with their actions, don't make it so hard for so and easy for others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsta 88 (talk • contribs) — Finsta 88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

^ "DRT Charts Website". digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 12 June 2017.
^ "About DRT Charts". www.digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 12 June 2017.
^ "VENTS Magazine 69th Issue Pg. 182". calameo.com. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this individual meets notability requirements outlined at WP:MUSIC. Some of the claims in the article are outright deceptive, such as calling the single "chart topping" when it apparently appears once at #44 on a list that, as far as I can tell, is obscure. Deli nk (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's wrong with this page? I've followed this artist for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.217.186 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsigned, non notable rapper.I ran a search, it mainly turned up non-RS references, who generally mention him as a side note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I have posted links to exclusive interviews with artist Khing Jus Wurk on various outlets including his guest appearance on EPN Entrepreneur Podcast Network ^[1] and as a guest he discuss various things being more than a side note but notable guest, as referred to by the host Eric Dye. Even the google account of Wurk links back to this wiki^[2] and everything mentioned is referred to from his music to his fitness ventures and struggles overcame. More so, his trademark name Khing Jus Wurk^[3] is respected and verified by the US government, and that can easily be verified, it clearly states who he is and what he does. How many artist have went as far as to legally trademark their name is that not in itself notable? Also people have already made edits on the topic and that will only grow with time given.

References

^ "Khing Jus Wurk | Entrepreneur Podcast Network - EPN". epodcastnetwork.com. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
^ "khing jus wurk - Google Search". g.co. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
^ "trademark: KHING JUS WURK (serial no. 86959542)". www.tmfile.com. Retrieved 13 June 2017.

- Jenna.williams His google account linking back to Wikipedia is totally meaningless. And a patent or trademark means that something has been registered - also meaningless in the context of notability. There is no coverage of him otherwise and interviews do not establish notability either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- ChrissymadI understand that you feel that the trademarks are meaningless, even though it states who the subject is and registered with the United States Government and that in itself is a process that takes months sometimes years to go through. As well as your opinion that the entire article on the artist was a hoax, then you followed up that those charts DRT aren't real. Even with the given references and the notable artist on the charts with the artist, I don't know if you have a personal attachment to the artist are not but others have already contributed to the wiki positively. All your arguments thus far have been disputed and proven to be wrong, this artist is notable in their own right and has accomplished things not many rappers have.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creator requested deletion. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marlette Funding[edit]

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

A financial services company that offers financial services. Ptachd together from routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Mduvekot (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG, though Best Egg may be the more appropriate place for this I guess as that's the heaviest focus.Isingness (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo piece, with typical PR driven coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as stand alone article; merely a promotional piece. Kierzek (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodoljub Vulović[edit]

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

His has some following on blogs, there is one interview with him in major media ([1]). But, I don't think there is any "reliable independent source with significant coverage" of this person. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No more evidence of notability than in 1st Afd. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Vanjagenije.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Vanjagenije. Lacks sufficient coverage to meet notability requrements. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Shah[edit]

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

As per recent discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive : there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. "meets WP:CRIN" is not sufficient. Therefore I propose this article for deletion. This player is nothing more than WP:MILL Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The man is a first-class cricketer who does meet WP:CRIN as TWO reliable sources will immediately testify and others will confirm in due course. What a waste of everyone's time by someone who is obviously on WP to pursue a deletionist policy only. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Knock it off with the indiscriminate nominations in violation of the RfC. This is clearly disruptive and it continues, we may have to discuss nominator's disruptive behavior in the appropriate forums such as WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPORT - "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which it does by meeting WP:NCRIC and the concerns raised at the related AfD about not flooding AfD with these type of noms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and note the pointed nomination given the context. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Baseer (cricketer)[edit]

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

As per recent discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive : there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Therefore I propose this article for deletion. This player is nothing more than WP:MILL Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He played first-class cricket and therefore meets the requirements of WP:CRIN. If he was a WP:MILL player, he wouldn't have been good enough to play for Hyderabad. Whatever may have been discussed at the "village pump", there has been no change to the wording of WP:NSPORTS which emphasises in bold that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". The SSC is summarised by WP:NCRIC on same page in respect of cricket and the full notability criteria for cricket is at WP:CRIN. As for your desire to delete articles, I would point out that our core policies are WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. This article passes them all and we are building an encyclopaedia, not pandering to a small group of WP:IDONTLIKEIT merchants. In addition, there is WP:NOTPAPER so you are not saving needed space. The only problem with this article was that it was a WP:STUB that needed a bit of work doing to improve its structure and presentation. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the FAQ on NSPORTS says (my emphasis):

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

That element of the FAQ seems to me to be consistently ignored in discussions such as these but would seem, to me, to detail the nature of the relationship between the GNG and NSPORTS. In that context I can understand how someone could vote for deletion in these circumstances. It may be reasonable to suggest that with time and access to local news reporting that proper, in depth sources could be found. It's the balance of those two arguments that I feel should be the focus of discussion here.

The reason why the FAQ is "consistently ignored" is because it is only an FAQ. The operative condition is "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" which is the second sentence in the page introduction. You cannot possibly claim that something in an FAQ carries the same weight. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, adding a bunch of scorecards as references - which are what the top 4 refs now in the article are - strikes me as not representing in depth sources which deal with the subject. I'd also argue very strongly indeed that doing so is OR. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot possibly be OR because WP:NOR states: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". CricketArchive is a reliable, published source. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The point of WP:CRIN etc. is, as Blue Square Thing alludes to above. We suppose that anyone who meets CRIN could meet WP:N via WP:GNG. Locally, there are probably significant news sources available that provide non-trivial information. However, at the moment, with the sources used, this article does fail to meet WP:N, as WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Scorecards are clearly not significant coverage of an individual. Harrias ^talk 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the probable existence of these news sources is a significant reason for keeping the article. After all, there is no time limit for bringing an article up to C-class, B-class, GA or FA. The player is notable per SSC because he is in two respected online sources (Lugnuts found him at CI too, btw, but his name has a different spelling). I disagree with your penultimate sentence because NSPORTS clearly asserts that the subject must meet EITHER GNG OR SSC (see above). If there is a contradiction between the two it needs to be sorted out quick but just imagine the problems for all sporting projects if these "deletionists" get their way. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is exactly what the RfC linked above rejected. The consensus there was that a SSG did not overrule the GNG. Harrias ^talk 21:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are not seriously asserting that the views of a small number of editors in one forum, that has no direct connection with GNG or NSPORTS, dictate that NSPORTS must be radically altered. The topic needs to be discussed at NSPORTS itself and consensus achieved there. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Passes WP:CRIN. We've been through this dozens of times before. St Anselm (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If you want to change WP:NCRIC or WP:NSPORT, then start an RFC there. Until then, we use those guidelines. This article passes those guidelines, and this is not a suitable place to try and fight the system. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Joseph2302: There is no need to start RFC. This was already done and it's the very reason why I nominated this page for deletion, because consensus was already reached. WP:DICC Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jone Rohne Nester: I think a consensus among one small group of editors in one forum that is not directly involved with either GNG or NSPORTS can be taken as advisory and not compulsory. You are a very inexperienced editor and you need to learn much more about how the site works. If you are going to raise an AfD for every single stub or weak start on the site you are going to waste an awful lot of time. You have seen how easy it was to expand this article using two sources into a start-class one; the same is true of 99.9% of stubs. If you want to use AfD, concentrate on articles that really do not belong on WP and which almost certainly fail one of the four core policies: WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V. It should have been obvious to you that this article was genuine and you should simply have added attention tags to request structure, more narrative, more references. I see that you also need to learn how the PROD process operates and I strongly recommend that you learn about site procedures before coming on here making dogmatic (and grossly incorrect) statements such as "this player is run of the mill". What a waste of time. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Since you are starting to call names ("deletionists", "small community") and fanatically attacking everyone like unleashed dog, blindly ignoring what other editors are saying, It's quite obvious that you are not bringing any sense into this discussion. You don't need to prove me anything,- all what I did is proposed this article for deletion, so that others can decide to delete it or not. As far as I can see, so far the ONLY argument is "meets WP:CRIN" and besides sport directories no other sources has been provided. If that's the case and majority thinks we should keep this article, unlike you I have no problem with that.Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jone Rohne Nester: These comments are bang out of order and are largely untrue. What you have said is a blatant breach of WP:CIVIL and that is on top of the breach of WP:BLP that I warned you about. We will discuss this at WP:ANI. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Sure go ahead, and show everyone how you are dealing with anyone who disagrees with you about cricket. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OBVIOUS keep and a very UNTHINKING nomination. Hyderabad cricket team represents the state of Telangana, population: 35 million. Cricket is most popular sport. So Abdul baser was once in the top 11 players in the whole state ... big headlines in his hometown, tv interviews etc. In England a player from a football club in a town of 20,000 gets an article. In England a player for a second division county Championship team gets an article. He is only in the best 200 players (maybe) out of 54 million (England population). But an Indian who is in the best 11 out of 35 million gets no article?? And they say Wikipedia has no racism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandy Batinkin (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a couple of press references perhaps? They don't need to be in English, but something that would provide proper media coverage would be helpful. If it helps then I think there are some users who would question whether players from other countries should be the subject of an article if there is not suitable sourcing either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Your final sentence does not make sense. What are you saying? Jack | ^{talk page} 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it's not just Indian players where people might question notability. I think it's possible to argue that there are British players where it would be very difficult to show notability per the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN is actually very strict on notability and if a player who can only, for the present, be found in CA or CI is shown by them to meet CRIN, then it can be assumed in 99.99% of such cases that he will also meet GNG when someone can check the appropriate Wisden or a contemporary local newspaper. As a result, CRIN can be trusted and should be supported by everyone in WP:CRIC. All this guff about GNG re people who meet CRIN is a total waste of everyone's time. We are only concerned with GNG if a player fails CRIN but does meet GNG because he has broken a world record in minor cricket and got himself into the national news, for example: like that kid in India who scored a thousand. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORT - "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which it does by meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the authors of the RfC that is partially referenced in the nomination, I might make a couple of points: 1) The close also states: "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." The nomination here does little more than reference that RfC and then throw this article into discussion. If the nominator wanted to make a single-article test case, then they probably should have made that clear. 2) The discussion there reached no conclusions about the exclusivity of any particluar guidelines, and certainly not on WP:NCRIC. 3) The discussion there reached a clear conclusion that WP:NSPORTS and WP:NCRIC do not override WP:GNG. While discussions within projects have historically tried to advocate that their subject-specific guidelines (SSG's) do override the GNG, this third point is not new to that discussion and in fact re-iterates long-standing project-wide consensus. Discussions of this sort on the Village Pump are often preferred since they have such project-wide visibility. There is currently more discussion about this guideline relationship at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposal re GNG/SSC relationship and much of the discussion above is about points and arguments probably better-placed there. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:CRIN. The RfC said not to flood AfD with indiscriminate nominations based solely on that. Nominator appears to have done that with this and others. Knock if off, close this, and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please provide third party reference/source about this player to verify his GNG notability? So far there are only two sources on the reflist: 6 links from the same sport directory which is not publicly accessible and 1 link from ESPNcricinfo which is a score card. 0 results about this player on Google News, no results on general Google search and so on. In English or in other languages would be fine. Thank you Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danila Khakhalev[edit]

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

As per recent discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive : there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. I did a research on Danila Khakhalev - no significant coverage about this footballer, no statistics, awards or any other significant achievements, therefore I propose this page for deletion. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. The RfC said not to nominate articles for deletion indiscriminately. This was done in bad faith. Let's close this and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is a disruptive nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per all of the above. Another disruptive, time-wasting nomination by this editor who is in breach of WP:AGF. As Smartyllama says, "the RfC said not to nominate articles for deletion indiscriminately". There appear to be several of these attributed to the same editor. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Kramer[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: Child actor in one film; no significant media coverage. Was prodded for these reasons, prod removed by the author without improvement. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the star is not notable, although I suspect he will be one day. - Richard Cavell (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear example of WP:TOOSOON, actor isn't mentioned in any WP:RS, and the one film he's in may not be notable either. Not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although I've !voted I'm going to WP:BOLDLY follow WP:IAR and wrap this up, Consensus is overwhelmingly to keep as per GNG so keeping this open for the next 3-4 days is rather pointless and a waste of everyones time so am wrapping it up, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Womack[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not in and of herself notable to pass WP:NPOL for the fact she is deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales per se —the depth and breadth of sourcing here is not enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the twelve sources here, five are primary sources from the Green party directly, one is her Linkedin profile, one is a University search for her thesis, and two are election result pages, these cannot assist notability at all, leaving us with just three pieces of reliable source. Media coverage of campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, because everybody who was ever a candidate in any election anywhere could always show that much coverage, so this covers two more sources. Leaving one YouTube video which she is not the subject of, but seems that she appears in, this is though nowhere near the threshold to establish notability for this individual.To earn a Wikipedia article, people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance, but nothing here shows that at all. Sport and politics (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say she meets WP:NPOL, holding "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". The article needs better sources, yes, but deletion is not the solution. By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance". Would you mind explaining? Yintan 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Just realised that your deletion rationale is almost a straight copy of Bearcat's delete argument here. Now I'm truly confused. Yintan 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good template of why this individual not notable, and I have yes largely used that as the template for here. Also, expansion and explanation on how this minor deputy leader post makes someone who does not have general notability coverage notable is required. Lucas and Bartley yes as leaders, but deputy leader no way. This discussion needs more than just, it meets notability as a post, it is notable therefore because. In relation to the point of Womack being more notable, she cannot simply be notable for holding the post it must be shown that she is more notability than just "Holder of deputy leader post", and is notable in her own right. Sport and politics (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell being the deputy leader of a national party is notable enough, according to the notability guidelines. It was certainly enough for her predecessors, they all have articles too. This is not, as you call it, "a minor post". She's not a failed councelor in some remote village. Yintan 15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to be more than it is simply because it is. She is just a post holder and that is it. simply holding this post does not confer notability. it is going to have to be established that this post is notable in and of itself for the holder of. simply stating it is notable because it not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. The re-stating of it is notable because it is notable does pass muster, please provide evidence and reasons as to why it is a notable post making the post holder inherently notable simply for holding the post. Sport and politics (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat myself again. Yintan 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reasons apart from it is just because have been given, it's nothing more than a vote saying "it simply is." Sport and politics (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being deputy leader of a political party is enough for notability if the person is reliably sourced over WP:GNG for the fact. It is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles a person to keep an article that's parked almost entirely on primary sources and YouTube videos, as this is. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deputy leader of a party with Parliamentary representation seems highly likely to confer notability, and a quick search turns up "Who's Who in the Green Party" from the New Statesman which includes a short profile, and makes a good case for her being a notable figure, and the ITV News piece is also good evidence, a national piece about her decision to stand in Wales, where the hook is that she is deputy leader of the party. Warofdreams talk 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how this post is notable, a couple of sources here and there are hardly a demonstration of the ability to show the post os notable. It also seems to be drifitng to a wider discussion away from the subject and towards the post in and of itself, perhaps a better forum is needed to establish if this post is in and of itself is notable. Then this will be simpler. I will find an alternate location to transfer this discussion to and freeze this discussion when that has occurred.

Keep. Meets notability guidelines. A quick search finds 327 Google News hits including the following: Huffington Post, The Independent, Worcester Observer, Bright Green, Hampshire Chronicle, Times & Star, Music Week, Norfolk Eastern Daily Press, Metro News, The Guardian, etc. Other citations can be found on Google Books. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this will be covered under GNG as she has stood for election, some will also be for people of the same name. Please if there are reliable sources which establish her individual, add them to her article. Having had a good look through most are general election coverage, and the Huffington Post is a self-published blog article. Sport and politics (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) after checking sources, I think there's a lack of proof of meeting NPOL / GNG / NBIO in the article but the source above indicates there's more and enough. (as an OTHERSTUFF aside, what's the standard for other deputy leaders who aren't elected? Seems similar to Shahrar Ali). Widefox; talk 22:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article sees improvement. While being deputy leader of a political party can be enough for notability if the person is properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG, it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees an article regardless of sourcing issues — but this, as written, is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones. Of the two citations that actually constitute media coverage, just one is actually about her to any significant and non-trivial degree; the other just namechecks her existence in a pro forma list of every candidate in an election that she ran in. And Netherzone's 327 Google News hits aren't strong ones, either — I see a lot of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, and not any significant number of hits that are substantively about her. The Huffington Post hit, for example, does not represent coverage in which she's the subject — it's content in which she's the bylined author, which does not assist notability at all. I'm simply not seeing the depth or breadth of media coverage that it takes — when it comes to whether a person clears GNG or not, we care about the substance and quality of the Google News hits, not the raw number of them. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deputy leader of a fairly large national political party meets notability IMO. I don't think that because the article could do with expanding further is grounds for deletion. CarlDurose (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Deputy leader of a fairly large national political party" passes notability if the person is shown to be the subject of enough media coverage for that role to pass WP:GNG. It does not get an automatic "no good sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because she exists. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article is empty is because there is nothing notable to say about the subject of the article, Simply being a post holder in a party with an MP is not anywhere near enough to justify having an article. More than simply opinion and it is a notable position, are going to have be shown. It must be demonstrated that the position in and of itself is a notable post. Simply saying it is in not demonstrating the post is in and of itself notable. Sport and politics (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I added further citations to the article, from HuffPost, ITV News, London Evening Standard, and The Independent. CarlDurose (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above - Notable deputy leader who meets NPOL as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 10:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstarte the above, two points, neither one have been shown to be proved, simply say it is over the thresholds, is not enough. Sport and politics (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meets NPOL #2 and Meets GNG which I've demonstrated below.

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

References

^ Womack, Amelia. "Every Vote Counts For The Greens". HuffPost UK. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ Woodcock, Andrew (13 May 2017). "Green Party vows to decriminalise prostitution". The Independent. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ "Decriminalise prostitution, Green Party urges". BBC News. 13 May 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ "Deputy leader of Green Party to visit Winchester today". Hampshire Chronicle. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ Stone, Jon (28 March 2017). "Daily Mail formally reported to press regulator over 'Theresa May legs' front page". The Independent. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ Nagesh, Ashitha (13 May 2017). "Lib Dems pledge to legalise weed while Greens promise to legalise sex work". Metro. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ George, Rob (17 May 2017). "Greens pledge 28-day mental health referral". Worcester Observer. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ "Decriminalise prostitution, Green Party urges". BBC News. 13 May 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ "Green Party's deputy leader Amelia Womack joins Jack Lenox on Copeland by-election campaign trail". www.timesandstar.co.uk. February 21, 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ Mortimer, Josiah (29 July 2016). "Q&A – Deputy leader candidate Amelia Womack: "I'm proud of my achievements over the past two years"". Bright Green. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ "#Election2017 - Deputy Leader of the Greens in York tomorrow". Minster FM. 6 April 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ Knights, Emma (21 April 2017). "Green Party unveils its manifesto for next month's local elections in Norwich". Eastern Daily Press. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

Just something to note the HuffPost blogs are written by Amelia herself so I've tried not to include those however notability is must certainly there,

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Womack is the subject of few to none of those sources; she's merely namechecked, mostly as a provider of soundbite, within references whose subjects are other people or things. That is not the type of sourcing it takes to clear GNG — a person gets an article by being the subject of coverage about her, not by providing a fifteen-word quote in an article whose subject is Theresa May's legs. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician at the national level. She can get elected and then we can create the article. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sufficient sources to meet GNG (thanks Davey). --NSH001 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Update the article to reflect the information, and improve the article, don't just sit them on this page, add them to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and politics - What did your last slave die of ?, You have arms and some sense/knowledge so do it yourself. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable deputy leader of a main national political party who meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Also, if there are problems with the article then this can be addressed through normal editing not deletion, WP:SOFIXIT.

Sport and politics, you are not adding anything new when you respond to every keep contribution. We have seen your opinion, and your reasons. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct not getting how Wikipeidia works, be bold you have found the sources, you think they are notable, you should be adding them.Sport and politics (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refrain from personal comments which may fall foul of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Sport and politics (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my bit by not only finding the sources but also adding them here (in full), If anyone wants to add them then fine otherwise they can just sit here, Anyway point is sources have been found which confirms her notability so therefore now there's no reason to delete nor is there any valid reason to keep this AFD open any longer. –Davey2010^Talk 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Davey. Please explain specifically exactly what personal comment may fall foul of WP:NPA policy? Tanbircdq (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase What did your last slave die of? and the fact is specifically directed at myself. This is the comment I take issue with and falls fouls of the policy. Sport and politics (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with you giving orders to others to add the sources to the article. As for your frivolous complaints about Davey's comment, go back and read your own comment about another editor not getting how Wikipedia works. That's a personal comment directed at a more experienced editor than yourself. I suggest you stop bludgeoning this process. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry hadn't seen the reply but I agree entirely with Lepricavark - You're essentially demanding I (or someone atleast) add the sources to the article when you're more than capable of doing it yourself, Also "What did your last slave die of?" isn't a personal attack nor does it come anywhere close - If you're so sensitive to remarks like this then this place isn't for you but that aside I would suggest you go and read WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL and I would suggest you stop wasting our time with silly AFDs like this one otherwise I'll happily have you blocked from this process altogether, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sourcing shown for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Surprised this is even in discussion. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Defaulting to Keep w/o prejudice to a renomination at a future date. However I would encourage waiting a bit before sending this back to AfD to allow time for possible improvements in the article or clarification on how SUSTAINED the coverage is. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Bethmann[edit]

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

Simply TOOSOON. It looks like she won Top Model yesterday, which means she's in her "15 minutes of fame" and fails WP:BLP1E. Maybe try again in six months to a year? Primefac (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that it's the twelfth season of the show, and if American Idol or X Factor are any indication, the further along we get the less notable these people become. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the other winners have pages, the newest winner should have a presumption of notability as well. I might support an AfD of one of the 11 previous winners if they are not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The page is great!!! PantherLoop (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC) copied from the talk page. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page is notable and possesses citation, if as meager as the content in the article. –Vami _IV✠ 10:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this as none of the Keep comments addressed the actual requirements of GNG/BIO – if any !voter wishes clarification, they can contact me on my talk page please; (an acknowledgement to Primefac for copying the talk page comments too to this Afd.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only possible claim for BIO is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Would be okay with a redirect to Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 12). Linguist ^talk|contribs 22:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the earliest three !votes as not policy-based, there is still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is on the bubble in terms of notability IMHO -- hinging on whether Germany's Next Top Model is a "significant" award -- but it's currently in okay shape. And, yes, the previous winners are already here too. --Lockley (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's significant. It's a well known modelling competition, similar-ish to a beauty pageant. So in my opinion winners are covered by ANYBIO. Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known competition, many search results come up in German - perhaps someone who speaks German can confirm reliable sourcing for those? Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Fails to WP:TOOSOON and WP:SUSTAINED. I don't think she warrants an article at this point, she needs more coverage over more time. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 12), she's notable enough to be mentioned in that article, but not yet notable enough for a stand-alone article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 12). A plausible search term, but it's WP:TOOSOON (per available sources) for a stand-alone article. Not notable independent of the show, hence the redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum or Keep No arguments for deletion have been made by any participant. Nor is there any reason to suspect that deletion arguments exist to delete either the topic or the edit history. As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, disputes that are attempts to use the deletion process for content discussion should be moved to the talk page of the article. Indeed, as per WP:BEFORE, a deletion discussion should have been preceded with discussions on the talk page of the article, which we don't have. So all paths lead to the talk page and away from deletion specialists making content decisions. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The arguments supporting this position appear to clearly be stronger. While WP:TOOSOON is a valid concern, notability is also not temporary, and consensus has been that any winner of a national competition like this (as opposed to runners-up or other mere contestants) is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied. Moved to User:Pbsouthwood/AP Diving. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.Valves[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. A.P.Valves is an important manufacturer of scuba gear in Britain, even if it is not heard of much in the USA. For sources or proof, ask a few British scuba divers. I have no financial connection with the firm. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that A.P.Valves is notable as the manufacturer of one of the most widely used recreational rebreathers (Inspiration) and other diving products. However there are no references in the article to support its notability. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend that if the decision is to keep, that the article is moved to AP Diving, the current name of the company. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People have added references to the article now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article is currently short of references establishing notability, AP Diving has been producing respected and/or controversial products for a significant period. The Inspiration rebreather is one of the better known recreational rebreathers due to a relatively large number of users, and some controversy about safety and fatality rates. This is well known among rebreather divers, as can be established by referring to the internet discussion groups, but has generally not made the headlines in the printed media. The buoyancy compensators are specified for military use in the UK, and the commercial jump jacket harness is recognised as one of the better options for its purpose by members of the offshore diving industry, but this sort of thing does not make the front pages. Diving magazines for the recreational/technical diving market and offshore industry may provide the needed evidence, but I do not have access to these. I will continue to look for relevant sources, but I also have other things to do. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "They often exhibit at diving trade shows.[2]" is hardly a claim to notability. Likely created for the purposes of promotion and currently serves this purpose. The company may be notable (of which I'm not convinced), but in any case I suggest deleting until such time when a volunteer editor would want to create a neutral article. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:, Please clarify. Are you claining that the Wikipedia article was probably created for purposes of promotion and is currently promotional, or that the reference stating that they often exhibit at dive shows was probably created for promotion and is currently promotional, or something else?

I do agree that exhibiting at diving trade shows in a weak claim to notability, but a weak claim is not evidence of a lack of notability. Lack of evidence of notability is the real problem. I disagree that the article has a significant neutrality problem.

Are you suggesting that any of the editors of the article are not volunteers? Ie. paid editors? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To !vote delete at AfD it is neither an editor's responsibility to show that there are no possible reliable sources that cover the subject, nor prove that the writers of the article are paid. I'd prefer that we just show that 1) there are no RS in the article, 2) that we can't find any in a reasonable internet search, and also 3) let's just let any paid editors go away on their own (no tarring and feathering unless they insist on it) after they realize they their input is not wanted here.

BTW, I've deleted the product list in the article per WP:NOTCATALOG (#5). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After googling both "A.P.Valves" and "AP Diving" for news and for the whole web, I've found 2 passing cites. On one of those industry awards pages it was mentioned as a small part of a prize package. 2nd - on a Korean heart doctors' website (relying on Google translate here) was "AP (asia pacific) VALVES" which I think refers to heart valves only. No citations = no notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a little more, but nothing I could describe as useful. I am not going to try to convince anyone that it is a big deal. I have no particular interest in articles on companies in general or AP Diving in particular, but if, as seems likely, the article is deleted, and if Anthony does not want it userfied to him as the creator, please userfy to me as AP Diving so if I ever find sufficient evidence of notability we still have the history and what little is worth keeping, as I try to help anything along that is related to underwater diving. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Teo[edit]

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

A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, he is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actors' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene.

I have previously nominated Damien Teo for deletion on the deletion page of another child actress, Regene Lim. For the page Damien Teo, the deletion was contested by an unknown user, stating the page should not be deleted as Teo "is also a wushu representative for Singapore". I did some research and yes, Teo did represented Singapore in the 4th World Junior Wushu Championships in 2012. He came in 6th in the C division of Men's Daoshu, and joint 14th in Men's Changquan (source).

Despite this, I still personally feel an article is not necessary for Teo. First of all, the competition in question is not even notable or recognised worldwide, and Teo's participation in the competition was not covered by the local media (note that this is a NATIONAL REPRESENTATION but no media coverage). Secondly, he did not win any medals as he failed to be placed in the top 3. Hence, he is merely a participant in an international competition which has no notability. Does that mean an article should be created for him? If this is the case, an article should be created for the rest of the participants of the competition then (which is crazy as all of them like him, does not have any notability in Singapore).

I am also nominating the following related pages because all of the following are also pages about Singaporean child actors who do not have much notability in Singapore. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DerricktanJCW (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following are the articles that are in question:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep for Teo, no comment on the other actors - I don't know much about Singaporean entertainment (Anime Festival Asia notwithstanding), but it seems that he won not one but two awards, in differing years as well (2015 and 2016). I'm not sure how notable this "Star Awards" award is in Singapore, but if it's a prestigious award and a local version of an Academy Award, I would say maybe at the very least Teo is notable. However, if anyone more versed in Singaporean media says the award is not that prestigious, consider my !vote as a delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Awards is a major award show in the Chinese entertainment scene in Singapore, hosted annually by the only terrestrial TV broadcaster Mediacorp. The awards are mostly given out to artistes who are contracted to Mediacorp, except for the Young Talent award – which are given out to child actors who are not contracted to Mediacorp and are engaged on a project-to-project basis.

The Young Talent award is probably one of the least prestigious or importance award that is given out at the Star Awards as the child actors that were nominated are mostly bit players in their respective nominated work. In fact, in the most recent Star Awards, the award was given out at the prelude show instead of the main show. This shows that the organisers of the award show has stopped placing emphasis on this award which is considered less prestigious in the local entertainment scene. Winning more than one of the Young Talent award certainly does not establish the child actor's notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene.

I would like to reiterate that most of the child actors in Singapore do not have much notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene, especially those that has appeared in productions by Mediacorp. The child actors, though nominated for an award in a local award ceremony (which I have explained above to be of less importance as compared to the others), are bit players in their nominated work and do not have much notability. Therefore, based on the nature of the award in question and also the status of child actors in Singapore, I strongly advise remove Damien Teo's article as he has been proven to be of no notability in the local entertainment scene. DerricktanJCW (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wushu championship is a world championship. Young wushu sportsmen from all over the world competed in it. A sixth placing is not notable? The local press only give coverage when one win an Olympic gold medal.

How is his participation and placing in the championship even considered as notable when it is not even covered by the press? If it's not even covered by the press, it means that the general public knows nothing about it or even be interested about it. I am quite positive that majority of the Singaporean knows nothing about his participation, or even the championship in question because it is so niche that probably not every country in the world even participated in it. In local context, as a participant of the competition, he is definitely not notable. And a sixth placing is considered as notable? Are you serious? DerricktanJCW (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem lies with the local press. There are only a few pages of sports news and 80% of it are dedicated to foreign sports. And it is not true that the press did not profile on Damien Teo. Check here: http://www.zaobao.com.sg/culture/entertainment/stars/story20150610-489959 . The local populace certainly know more about him as the local Chinese tv dramas have the highest tv viewership in Singapore, more than 10 times the top American tv series."

If his participation is not being covered by the press, it means it is not covered! If his participation is even a little newsworthy and worth mentioning, do you think the editors would let it go just because there isn't enough space for local sports news? If a LOCAL newspaper would rather cover FOREIGN sports news rather than a local sportsman participating a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS, then please, just accept it that his participation, the outcome of his participation, and the championships themselves ARE NOT NOTABLE locally. With regards to the article on Lianhe Zaobao, the article does not just feature him but another two child actors as well. In fact, the article is mainly about the life of a child actor in Singapore and they just merely interviewed Damien Teo and the other two child actors to support whatever they have written in the article, because they are child actors themselves and they know best about the life of a child actor in Singapore. The article certainly does not establish the fact that he is a notable artiste in the local entertainment scene.

Side note: Nobody uses TELEVISION viewership to determine the popularity of local shows now because lesser and lesser people are watching tv. Even if they do, they will do it online. And it is perfectly normal for local shows for to have a higher tv viewership because majority of the shows on broadcast are local????!DerricktanJCW (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, it is the local press that is not the giving local sports enough credit. If you said less people are watching tv, then even lesser people are reading the papers, since you have been using the press coverage as a basis of notable or not. But do you have statistics to prove that people are watching less tv? Companies are still spending millions on tv advertisements. They are not stupid, right? ;) If you prefer to use social media as a basis, his facebook page has more than 16000 likes and followers https://www.facebook.com/noontalk.damien/ and the 6-minute video on him receiving the acting award has more than 19000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFLdKUZ-Hw&t=231s

Then on what basis do you come up with the theory that "the local press that is not the giving local sports enough credit"? How do you know they do not give local sports enough credit? Do you know how they work? It is a LOCAL newspaper, and a LOCAL is participating in a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, do you think they would not want to cover it in the papers? But the thing is, are they obliged to cover ALL local sports news, even those that are not notable and probably no one would want to know/read about? Running a newspaper is all about generating revenue and gaining readership - and to ensure this is of course to feature only news that would draw the attention of their readers and of great notability in their limited amount of newspaper space. It is NEVER about whether the local press wants to give local sports enough credit or not. They would of course give credit where credit's due. But if there is no "credit" to even begin with, then what do you expect from them? Force them to cover his participation in the championships when they don't think it is notable enough to cover it? Like what I've mentioned earlier, if his participation is newsworthy/notable, they will publish it. It is not about whether they give enough credit or not. If it is not notable, they won't cover, simple as that.

I do not know if lesser people are reading the papers, but what does this got to do with his notability as a Wushu world championships participant? The problem is not about whether the people are reading the papers! It is about his participation is deemed not notable enough to be covered by the local press! Nobody wants to cover it! Why? Because not notable/newsworthy! Whether the people are reading the papers is totally another question.

I can't produce statistics to prove that people are watching lesser tv, but what I can say is in this year Star Awards,　they have stopped giving out the Top-Rated Drama Serials/Variety Programme awards, which is determined by television viewership in the year. Why? Because television viewership is now unable to determine the popularity of the shows now because more viewers are shifting to watching shows online, as they stopped watching them on TV. With regards to this, there is a reason why I put this pointer as a side note in my earlier argument because I never intended to use this to argue his notability as an artiste, because the shows that Damien Teo was in, they might be popular and top-rated with high tv viewership, but he is not even the lead actor but just a supporting/bit player! So what makes you think that his appearance in the local dramas was the cause of its high viewership? Are you sure he is the reason why the dramas were so popular? Does it mean that I am a notable artiste just because I was featured in a drama with high viewership?

And I never said I prefer social media as a basis of his notability. In fact, there are more people (especially social influencers) with higher social media followers and youtube video views than him, but I don't see that any of them has a Wikipedia article opened up for them. Having high social media following does not mean that he is an established artiste or notable Wushu championships participant, which is what we are talking about here. DerricktanJCW (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say I am a sports lover and have travelled much. The local press coverage of local sports is really pathetic. If you don't believe, just check today's Straits Times. Of course, there are many more notable people who have not been written in Wikipedia. This is normal. But I think enough have been said. Perhaps we can vote. ;)

I think you still do not understand the fact that the local press are not obliged to cover all local sports news if they think they are not newsworthy. If there are no news, means there are no news! The coverage is "pathetic" because there is nothing for them to cover! Are they supposed to produce news out of nowhere? There's nothing really much about sports that is happening in Singapore that is newsworthy enough to be covered by the press for the past few days. The local sports market in Singapore is so small, nothing big with regards to sports is happening locally, it's perfectly normal for the coverage to be small.

And yes, we are voting right here. And up till now I still cannot decipher your stand because you have been bringing up argument points that do not seem to be unable to link back to whether if Damien Teo is an established local artiste or Wushu championship participant in Singapore. So do you think we should keep this page because he is an established local artiste, a notable Wushu championship participant, or both? In my opinion, you are just bringing up random points to counter my claims that Damien Teo is not an notable individual in Singapore in an effort to keep this page but you can't seem to be able to provide concrete evidence to prove otherwise. In fact, you seem to place more emphasis on my claims on the nature of local sports news coverage, RATHER THAN the notability of Damien Teo as an individual in Singapore, which is what we are really discussing here. This wouldn't have happened if you really feel strongly about his existing notability in Singapore as an artiste/wushu practitioner. If you feel like you have said enough, then I would like to suggest to the Wikipedia administrator to delete this page because your argument points are not strong enough. Thank you. :D DerricktanJCW (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed strange that you only consider your points as valid but not mine. You brought up the press as a yardstick. Then you said more people are not watching tv nowadays. Aren't you contradicting yourself? You should know that the only press in Singapore is tightly controlled by the government. Although other entries in Wikipedia are more notable than Damien Teo, there are many who are less notable but still appearing in Wikipedia. Shouldn't they be removed too? Eg Fabian Kwok has a one-line description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Kwok Have you heard of him? There are many of such entires in Wikipedia. Wushu is China's national sport and a future Olympic sport. A sixth placing on the world stage is nothing? Com'on.... I can only conclude that it is your personal opinion that Damien Teo is not notable. He has even performed his wushu skills on national tv.

I have no objection to the other child actors except this one. I vote keep.

May I know how am I contradicting myself? Please kindly get your facts right. When I brought up the evidence that his participation in the championships is not being covered by the local press, I am trying to support my claims that the participation itself is not newsworthy enough to be covered. His participation is not notable enough and no one is covering it in the press. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TRIED TO REBUT MY CLAIMS BY TYING IN THE TOPIC ON NEWSPAPER READERSHIP AND TELEVISION VIEWERSHIP. I have never, in my initial claims, mentioned anything about newspaper readership or television viewership because to me it simply makes no sense. What does this got to do with the notability of his participation? You said that I am contradicting myself because I am using press coverage to support my claims on Damien Teo's notability but on the other hand I am saying that television viewership (and newspaper readership, as what you claimed) is decreasing over the years. So please enlighten me on this - if a newspaper with an 'extremely low readership' covered Joseph Schooling's gold medal win at the Olympics, does it mean that Schooling's win is not notable? Are you trying to say that low readership downplay the notability of his gold medal win? This is what you have been trying to counter my claims with! You are saying that I should not be using the press coverage of Damien Teo's participation as an evidence to support my claims because I said that lesser people are reading the papers! Does this make any sense at all? Whether the people are reading the papers or not, does it affect his notability as a Wushu championship participant? His participation was not covered because it lacks notability, and readership has nothing got to do with it. Please kindly wake up your idea.

Yes, the press in Singapore is tightly controlled by the government and practice censorship. So? Are you saying Damien's participation in the championship was being censored by the government, that's why it was not featured in the press? Is this something embarrassing? A LOCAL is participating in a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, I don't see any reason why local press would be restricted by the government to publish this piece of news. In your reference to your earlier claims, if you are saying that the government controls the local press by restricting the number of local sports news, which results in more coverage in foreign sports news, just think about this, do you really think it is even possible for the government to tell the press to favour foreign news over their local news? This is again, not making any sense, with your argument point on the government controlling the local press.

I do not care about other Wikipedia pages. If you feel they are less notable than Damien Teo you may raise a deletion request on your own. Nobody is stopping you. We are talking about Damien Teo here and I feel that he is not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, based on my arguments above. A less notable person with a Wikipedia article would not change the fact that the individual in question here is still NOT NOTABLE.

Yes, this is of course my personal opinion that Damien Teo is not notable, and this is the reason why I am here raising a deletion request, JUSTIFYING my stand to convince the administrators that he is indeed not notable as both an artiste and Wushu practitioner. I believe I have been firm on my argument points, and your attempts to counter my claims has been proved futile because you failed to even understand where I am coming from, especially when you tried to bring up irrelevant pointers on "lack of local sports coverage" and "low newspaper readership" to counter my claims on the notability of his participation when they do not even have any relation. Like what I have mentioned earlier, you are just trying to bring up random points in an effort to keep this page, and most of your responses do not even directly address my argument – you just come up with new pointers or examples and I believe this is the reason why somewhere in the middle we got off-topic and started talking about newspaper readership and television viewership instead of addressing the actual issue.

Therefore, I would like to conclude that your arguments on Damien Teo's notability as invalid. I stand by my proposition that Damien Teo is neither an established local artiste or Wushu practitioner and his Wikipedia article should be deleted. DerricktanJCW (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to take note that a government controlled single press versus many independent newspapers in other countries. Different papers may emphasize on different aspects. Notability by newspapers coverage was the very first thing mentioned at the top of this thread. So now you said this should not be used as a yardstick anymore. I am glad that you admit it is just your personal opinion but with no basis. A 16000 likes and followers on facebook and 19000 views on youtube is small number to you. You are probably comparing it with bigger countries. Singapore is a small country with a small population. I believe this is justified enough for his article to be kept.

Wow wow wow, since when did I mention that I am not using newspaper coverage as a "yardstick" anymore? Are you even reading what I've written above? Do you even know what you're writing as you attempt to counter my argument? I already said his participation was not notable enough to be covered. It is the nature of the news itself. It's a piece of news that no one wants to feature on their publication. You tried to link it with newspaper readership just because I said television viewership is decreasing in Singapore. How is this even related? Whether the people are reading the paper is what happens after the papers have been published. I am talking about at the pre-publication stage, no one wants to feature his participation because it is not newsworthy. This is what I am talking about here. Please stop accusing me of the things that I didn't say, and again, please get your facts right.

Again, I don't understand why you think government control was the reason why his participation wasn't covered in the local press. There is absolutely no reason why the government would restrict the press to not cover Damien's participation in the championships. It's obviously something not embarrassing and even something worth mentioning about because a Singaporean is representing their nation in a world championship. But why is this not covered? The reason that I can think about is - it's not newsworthy. It's not notable. No one is interested to know about it. Goverment control has nothing got to do with this.

Everyone can have their own opinions, including you, who thinks that he is notable enough to have his Wikipedia page kept. This is obviously also your personal opinion. It all starts with a personal opinion. But when you can JUSTIFY your opinion and convince the others, it is no longer a personal opinion but a FACT. This is what I am doing here, and please, you are the one who is making no sense by bringing up random and irrelevant argument points that has no basis. All your responses above is the truth, everyone can see it, and it amplifies the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about and never directly addresses my argument points.

He may have a relatively high social media following, but does this prove that he is an established actor or wushu practitioner in Singapore? He may just be a popular social media personality, like any other social media influencer. An notable actor needs to have a representative work, a notable sportsman needs to have a remarkable placing in world competitions (please stop saying that placing 6th in an extremely NICHE JUNIOR world championship is considered notable) – which Damien has none of those.

I stand by my proposition, to have this page deleted. DerricktanJCW (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one !vote per editor, folks...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in other countries where there are many independent newspapers is that they can choose to focus on different areas. If Damien Teo has been in another county, the chances of him being reported by at least one or two papers are higher than the single newspapers that S'pore has. This is the difference I want to make. And if you are still taking press coverage as a yardstick, why are you reject tv viewership? Newspapers readership has been dropping faster than tv viewership.

The reasons I am supporting him are as follow:-

1. He is the first and only person to win the Young Actor award twice. The 6-min youtube video of him receiving the award has 19000 views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFLdKUZ-Hw
2. He had appeared in 7 tv dramas, 2 films and 1 movie. He had also given wushu performance on national tv. His matured acting would definitely leave an impression on any one who had watched him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdD46C7lUsI
3. The tv dramas he had appeared have the highest viewership in Singapore, past statistics put the figures at 800 000 to 1 million. This is 10 times higher than the top American tv series.
4. His facebook page has 16000 likes and followers. Not a small feat for a small country with a small population like Singapore. https://www.facebook.com/noontalk.damien/
5. A 6th placing at the world wushu stage is a major achievement. The 1-min youtube video of his performance has almost 10 000 views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50qoLcM3m14
6. Wushu is not a extremely niche sport as claimed. The last World Championship has 73 countries competing. The World Youth Championship is a stepping stone for young wushu martial artists. http://www.iwuf.org/news/2016/0119/993.html
7. Last but not least, at the age of 16, he is no longer a child actor but a teenaged actor.

So I vote to KEEP

Quote 1: "And if you are still taking press coverage as a yardstick, why are you reject tv viewership? Newspapers readership has been dropping faster than tv viewership."

I think you really have a problem with comprehending what other people are saying. Why are you linking press coverage with newspaper readership, AGAIN? I thought I have explained above that this two are very different thing? The newspaper readership DOES NOT determine whether a news is being covered. A news is being covered when it is newsworthy. Nothing got to do with readership. Again, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Quote 2: "The difference in other countries where there are many independent newspapers is that they can choose to focus on different areas. If Damien Teo has been in another county, the chances of him being reported by at least one or two papers are higher than the single newspapers that S'pore has."

What nonsense is this? Do you know how many publications Singapore has? The Straits Times, The New Paper, Today, Lianhe Zaobao, Lianhe Wanbao, Shinmin Daily, Berita Harian, etc. There are so many! "Single newspaper"? Really? And what does this got to do with whether his news is deemed newsworthy enough to be covered or not? More newspaper means higher chances of coverage? Really? Do you even have any idea how the media works? Do you know why in 2004 Mediacorp was merged with SPH Mediaworks? Because SINGAPORE IS A SMALL COUNTRY AND THE MARKET SHARE FOR THE MEDIA INDUSTRY IS SMALL. The amount of media we have now is ENOUGH for a small country like us. In other countries, there are many publications because the country is HUGE, it is made up of many different cities and the publications are published to cater the people living in different cities. In Singapore, we are a city. The number of publications we have may not be as much as other countries, but please bare in mind that we are a CITY-STATE. What we have here is enough. Nothing to do with your theory about government control, or the lack of publications in Singapore (which I have proven above that it is not true for our small country) that has caused the lack of coverage of Damien's participation in the world championship. His news was not covered because it is not newsworthy. Period.

Quote 3: "He is the first and only person to win the Young Actor award twice. The 6-min youtube video of him receiving the award has 19000 views."

This statement AMUSES me THE MOST because this is a total ultimate evidence to show that you KNOW NOTHING about what you are talking about and just throwing in random pointers so that you can keep this page. Damien Teo is NOT the first and only person to win the award twice. Lyn Oh has achieved this feat in 2013 and 2014, way before Teo in 2015 and 2016. And to add on to this joke, Regene Lim has won the award THRICE CONSECUTIVELY, from 2009 to 2011. So Damien Teo is neither the record holder for the most number of wins in this award, and neither is he the first and only person to win the award twice consecutively. Do some research, will you? It's funny how you just throw and bomb in stuff here which is not factual and it just shows how misleading you are in making people think that we should keep this page because of his supposedly notability which is non-existent.

And the articles of Regene Lim and Lyn Oh have been deleted because they do not have any notability as a child actor in Singapore despite winning multiple awards at the Star Awards. So your argument on the awards is no longer valid. The award is nothing.

Hey, I have a video here with Julie Tan receiving the Best Supporting Actress from the same award ceremony. link It has only 6,288 views. Does this mean that she is less notable than Damien Teo as an actor? Do the video views really prove anything? So what it has a lot of views? Does it mean that Damien Teo is an established actor? I have already said, an actor needs to have a representative work to be considered notable. Damien Teo is nothing but a bit player in drama series. Julie Tan has established herself as a notable actress in Singapore and has won praises for her performance in several drama series, especially The Dream Makers II. Does Damien has any of these? The people are probably watching the video because he has a pretty face. That's it. No way is it able to prove anything about his notability as an actor.

Quote 4: "He had appeared in 7 tv dramas, 2 films and 1 movie."

So? My friend, who is also an actor in Singapore, probably appeared in more tv dramas or productions than him (and mind you he is not a calefare but play major supporting roles). Are you saying this makes my friend notable? In any of the "7 tv dramas, 2 films and 1 movie", is any one of them considered as Damien's representative work? Can people think of Damien when they were asked about these shows? Damien can appear in 7 million shows but if no one can link him to any of his works than he is just an actor with no notability.

Quote 5: "He had also given wushu performance on national tv."

My friend has once gave a solo performance during National Day Parade. Should I create an article for her too?

Quote 6: "His matured acting would definitely leave an impression on any one who had watched him."

No. I don't have any impression. No one does. Again, someone with matured acting doesn't make the person a notable actor.

Quote 7: "His facebook page has 16000 likes and followers. Not a small feat for a small country with a small population like Singapore."

It's funny how you are ignoring my statement earlier that his social following does not prove anything about his notability as an actor or a wushu practitioner. Just in case you have certain visual impairment that I have no idea about which has caused you to unable to read my earlier argument in its entirety, let me quote what I've said earlier below:

He may have a relatively high social media following, but does this prove that he is an established actor or wushu practitioner in Singapore? He may just be a popular social media personality, like any other social media influencer. An notable actor needs to have a representative work, a notable sportsman needs to have a remarkable placing in world competitions (please stop saying that placing 6th in an extremely NICHE JUNIOR world championship is considered notable) – which Damien has none of those.

Again, people might just follow him on socials because he has a pretty face. That's it.

Quote 8: "A 6th placing at the world wushu stage is a major achievement. "

If you think it is then so be it. It may seem like huge feat because it's a world competition but honestly, a top 3 placing, with him winning a medal or some sort is then considered notable for him to have a Wikipedia article created. Nobody really cares about those who came in after 3rd in world championships. If we have to create articles for all the Tom Dick and Harry who finished in all of the placings in world championships, Wikipedia would become freaking cluttered with nonsensical articles. This is the reason why we are regulating the amount of articles by making sure that only NOTABLE individuals are warranted an article.

Quote 9: "Wushu is not a extremely niche sport as claimed. The last World Championship has 73 countries competing. The World Youth Championship is a stepping stone for young wushu martial artists."

Wushu is a sport that can only enjoyed by a select demographic. It is more common in the Asian countries and not everyone in the world practices this sport, unlike Table Tennis, Badminton, etc. When this sport is being featured in the Olympics, that's when you tell me it is not considered as niche sport. No matter how many countries have participated, Damien Teo is still not exactly competing against everyone in the world. It's a niche sport at a niche world championship. It does not have much notability. Moreover, it is a YOUTH championship. It's like the Youth Olympics which no one pays at much attention to the actual Olympics. Yes, it is a stepping stone, but you still have to admit that such youth competitions have lesser notability and people place lesser attention on the events and sportsperson from the games. The Wushu championship itself is already so niche, how much notability and attention can the youth championship for the sport garner?

Quote 10: "Last but not least, at the age of 16, he is no longer a child actor but a teenaged actor."

So are you arguing his notability as a child actor or teenage actor? Can you please make up your mind? You wanted to keep this article because of all his achievements as a child actor (even the Young Talent award at the Star Awards was given out to only the child actors), but now you want to identify him as a teenage actor. As a teenage actor, his notability is way worse than when he was a child actor, without receiving any awards and representative work. So does this mean that we should delete this article?

Conclusion: I think I have been repeating myself so much to you, DragTian (talk), that I feel like a broken recorder. Neither do you get what I am saying, nor do you even know what you are arguing when you are trying to counter my argument. Worst still, you even tried to put up NON FACTUAL CLAIMS and this shows how much you know about the subject in question, WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR RESEARCH. You seem to think that he is an established actor or wushu practitioner just because he has a relatively high social media following and has made appearance in local television and world championships, but all these do not prove his notability at all. I have mentioned that in my earlier argument that "an notable actor needs to have a representative work, a notable sportsman needs to have a remarkable placing", which I believe you have stubbornly chose to ignore because you CANNOT COUNTER THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT IS TRUE THAT DAMIEN TEO HAS NO REPRESENTATIVE WORK AS AN ACTOR AND HAS NO PROMINENT PLACING IN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS. I would like to appeal to the Wikipedia administrators to totally ignore DragTian's argument in this deletion request and deemed them as invalid because it has been proven that he is incapable of showing evidence to prove Damien Teo's notability and also just throwing in random, non-factual pointers in an effort to keep this page.

Therefore, I stand by my proposition: Damien Teo is not a notable artiste and wushu practitioner in Singapore, and his page should be deleted. DerricktanJCW (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SINGAPORE IS A SMALL COUNTRY AND THE MARKET SHARE FOR THE MEDIA INDUSTRY IS SMALL. I must point out how wrong you are in making this statement. Do you know how many newspapers Hong Kong have? The answer is 54!! Check the info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Hong_Kong and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Hong_Kong Do you know how the S'pore newspapers have been working nowadays? All belong to the same company and they reproduce each other stories! And some news are only reported two days after social media have reported them! No thanks to the dwindling number of reporters they have now. And to call wushu a niche sport when 73 countries participated in the world championship is not giving due respect to the sport.

You may also like to know that Damien is now the pin-up poster boy of Martial House, the leading martial arts school in Singapore. https://www.facebook.com/martialhouse/photos/a.231019160299653.53946.101064903295080/1301692023232356/?type=3&theater There is also a discussion forum on him in the famous China site http://tieba.baidu.com/p/3901576781 Check out the number of Hong Kong actors in Wikipedia. Many do not have representative work too. Why are they still in Wikipedia? We can't simply use your standard and judgement, especially it is merely your own opinion without any basis.

Quote 11: "All belong to the same company and they reproduce each other stories!"

I am totally blown away by you when you mention this statement because once again you are putting up non-factual claims again. Please do some research and show some credibility in your argument, will you? This is total utter nonsense. All you sure all publications belong to the same company? The Straits Times and Today, same company? Are you serious? Do you know Mediacorp and SPH have always been competing against each other for the exclusivity in their news? If a news is newsworthy and they fail to cover, their readers will go to their competitor. "Reproduce each other stories"? What nonsense! They will never do that! Who is the one here that has no idea about how the local newspaper market? Stop making a fool out of yourself. if Damien's participation in the championships is newsworthy, do you think any of the news outlets, be it Mediacorp or SPH or both, would not want to cover the story? When no one covered his participation, it means that his participation is not newsworthy! No one wants to know about it! It's not notable! Get it? I've repeated this countless times and I have no idea if my words were too sophisticated for you to understand or you have a problem with comprehending other people's words.

Quote 12: "Do you know how many newspapers Hong Kong have? The answer is 54!!"

You need to understand that the number of newspapers will not undermine the newsworthiness of a newspaper story. So more newspaper means the higher chance of a story to be covered? Huh? Are you really sure about this? I have already established the fact that a news is only being covered when it is newsworthy. If the news is not newsworthy no one would want to cover. It does not make a difference if Singapore has a million newspaper publications, or just one. Even if there is just one, if Damien's participation in the championships is newsworthy enough, they will cover it. That's it. It's all about newsworthiness. Stop bringing in all your nonsense theory about newspaper readership, government control, the lack of newspapers available in Singapore, or even editors favouring foreign news over local news to counter my argument on why Damien's participation was not being featured in the local press. Just accept it that the foreign news were more interesting and no one wants to read about a non notable local sportsman participating in a non notable championship. Period.

Quote 13: "And to call wushu a niche sport when 73 countries participated in the world championship is not giving due respect to the sport."

When a sport is not being practiced in every country, and also the fact that it is more commonly among the Asians, I am right to say that it is a niche sport. It does not mean that I am not giving any respect to it because it is a fact. No matter how many countries have participated in the championship, it still does not change the fact that it is a niche sport.

Quote 14: "You may also like to know that Damien is now the pin-up poster boy of Martial House, the leading martial arts school in Singapore."

Huh? So? Does this mean he is a notable wushu practitioner? I can get anyone to pose for the Martial Arts school also. Even a model who does not even practice the sport. So much about being a POSTER BOY, huh? I didn't know you become a notable individual when you become a poster boy. He was selected probably because he attends the school and has better looks among his peers. Again, it's all because he has a pretty face, and not because he is a notable Wushu practitioner. Wake up your idea, please!!!!! I have mention this point countless times as well.

Quote 15: "There is also a discussion forum on him in the famous China site"

Let me translate what the thread-starter said: "I only know that he is an artiste contracted under Noon Talk, Young Talent award winner in 2015 and a martial arts professional".

Are you sure you even want to provide this evidence to show that he is an established artiste? The person doesn't even know his name! How can he even be notable in Singapore when people can't even call out his name? The forum is full of screenshots of his supporting performances in drama series and his personal photos, and comments on how good-looking he is. Little has been said about his acting skills or anything was mention by the public to prove that he is an established artiste. It all shows that I am right, he is popular and has a high social media following all because he has got a pretty face and has nothing to do with him as an actor. The notability of him as an actor is what we are talking about here.

Quote 16: "Check out the number of Hong Kong actors in Wikipedia. Many do not have representative work too. Why are they still in Wikipedia? We can't simply use your standard and judgement, especially it is merely your own opinion without any basis."

Again, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT OTHER ARTICLES. I have mentioned if you think they are not notable, you can raise a deletion request for those articles. I have little knowledge about foreign actors, so there's no way I can comment about them. But I do know a lot more about local actors and the local media industry, and I know how notable Damien is in Singapore, and here I am raising a deletion request and justifying why he does not deserve an article. It is not a personal opinion without any basis. In fact I am insulted that this came from you because you are the one who spouts nonsense and provide non-factual claims TWICE. You have absolutely no credibility and no idea about how the local media industry works. To put it bluntly, to me you are probably just a supporter of Damien and do not wish to see his page go, and is totally delusional about his supposedly notability in Singapore which is non-existent.

And in my previous argument I have addressed so many issues in your statement, totaled up to 10. But you only responded to a few of them. Why are you not responding to them? Are you guilty or there is no comeback from you all because I was right in everything that I said? Even if you do respond, you gave non-factual claims or go out-of-point because you simply do not understand where I am coming from. I do not know to deal with you anymore because I feel like I'm talking to a loghead. DerricktanJCW (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You started off seeming to be fair. But you are so adamant in deleting his entry that you have gone totally biased, refusing to see other valid reasons. Perhaps you want to save face. Why would I want to rebut every single thing that you said, especially those that make no sense at all?

"the competition in question is not even notable or recognised worldwide", "an international competition which has no notability",

"And a sixth placing is considered as notable?", "in an extremely NICHE JUNIOR world championship" - I am leaving others to judge whether wushu is an extremely niche sport. 73 countries participated in the world championship. There are other countries who may not have sent participant because they do not have world standard wushu participant.

"A less notable person with a Wikipedia article would not change the fact that the individual in question here is still NOT NOTABLE." - Did you consider the fact that these less notable people with articles in Wikipedia for years and nobody has raised a deletion request against them, say something? This means that they are notable enough for Wikipedia standard!
"SINGAPORE IS A SMALL COUNTRY AND THE MARKET SHARE FOR THE MEDIA INDUSTRY IS SMALL." - I have shown you that HK has 54 newspapers.
"My friend has once gave a solo performance during National Day Parade. Should I create an article for her too?" - Yes if she is the only performer on National Day Parade, but not if she is just one of the hundreds or thousands of performers. Damien was the only performer on that tv show.
"Again, people might just follow him on socials because he has a pretty face. That's it." - You can't simply make such assumption and brush it off.
"Reproduce each other stories"? What nonsense! They will never do that!" - Obviously you are one who do not read the newspapers.
"I can get anyone to pose for the Martial Arts school also. Even a model who does not even practice the sport." - The fact is that the martial arts school did not do that, but got Damien to be their pin-up poster boy. Ask yourself why.
"The forum is full of screenshots of his supporting performances in drama series and his personal photos, and comments on how good-looking he is" - The fact is that there is interest aroused among netizens but not for other child actors.

Quote 17: "You started off seeming to be fair. But you are so adamant in deleting his entry that you have gone totally biased, refusing to see other valid reasons. Perhaps you want to save face."

HA HA HA!!! I am biased? Your reasons are valid? This must be the biggest joke ever because the stuff you came up with are non-factual, lies. You don't even know your stuff, and you have the cheek to say that I am biased and refused to accept your supposedly valid reasons? How am I biased? Just because I don't accept your nonsense I am biased? Just because I debunked all your nonsense, I am biased? Wow! I will be biased if I relented and accepted your NONSENSICAL responses. I came up with justified reasoning with facts, and you did not. You insisted that Damien is notable just because he has a high social media following and have made appearances in various shows. But you can't argue the fact that all these doesn't make him a notable individual in Singapore. You are the one that is biased, and stubborn, and chose to ignore what I've said. Don't say that I am trying to save my face because I am not. I stand by with whatever I've said and I am proud of it. On the contrary, you can't even make up your mind whether if he is an established artiste or sportsman in Singapore, and have been constantly throwing in random pointers after pointers after I refuted each of them. You are the one that is trying to save face, not me.

Quote 18: "Why would I want to rebut every single thing that you said, especially those that make no sense at all?"

If you think that I made no sense, then say it! How am I not making any sense? Tell everyone here! Provide evidences, like what I've done. I pointed out each and every of your senseless arguments, so why can't you do the same? Why are you keeping silent if you think whatever I've said is nonsense? Prove that I am wrong! Isn't this supposed to be a discussion? You should be addressing my supposedly senseless arguments instead of keep throwing in new pointers. The fact that you are avoiding my arguments and refusing to address them, only shows that you cannot counter them. It just goes to show that your argument is weak, and you need to come up with new points to support them. Oh, is this what you mean by "saving face"? Because I totally trashed your arguments and you have to come up with new stuffs to divert my attention from all your senseless points.

But it's not working because remember you said "He is the first and only person to win the Young Actor award twice"? I still remember this. So try harder to save your face, because I will never forget it :)

Quote 19: "I am leaving others to judge whether wushu is an extremely niche sport. 73 countries participated in the world championship. There are other countries who may not have sent participant because they do not have world standard wushu participant."

Why are you letting the others to judge? If you believe so much in this, then why can't you argue yourself? Just because I have debunked this? Or is it because you can no longer argue why you think Wushu is not a niche sport? Ok, so throw the ball to other people when you can no longer argue. This is so your style. I totally understand.

How do you know they have no world standard participant? What is the world standard? You can't participate in the world championship just because you do not have the "world standard"? Who says that? I can't believe you think that people can be barred from participating or the country refuses to send their countrymen out for a championship just because they do not have the so called "world standard". You don't give up before you even try to win? Is this even in line with the spirit of sportsmanship? Eric Moussambani from Equatorial Guinea represented his country in the 2000 Olympics 100m freestyle men swimming event. He clocked 1:52.72, the slowest time in Olympic history by far for the event. This guy even confessed he had never seen an Olympic-sized swimming pool before. But he still went for the olympics! The country sent him there! The country can send anyone whom they think is the best in their country to participate in the championships, if there is even any. Whether they have the "world standard" or not, it's up to how they perform during the championships. How sure are you that a wushu practitioner without the "world standard" will not win one with the "world standard"? Anyone can win, and anyone can participate in the championships. Who are you to judge?

Even if your theory is true, then why do you think the country lacks "world standard" participant? Is it because only a few people in the country practice the sport? Isn't this why the sport is considered niche? Why are you contradicting yourself, or should I say digging a hole for you to jump? Save some face, will you? Since saving face is so important. :)

Quote 20: "Did you consider the fact that these less notable people with articles in Wikipedia for years and nobody has raised a deletion request against them, say something? This means that they are notable enough for Wikipedia standard!"

It says that there are many people who CREATES RUBBISH on Wikipedia but there are little LIKE ME who REGULATES these nonsensical articles. It goes to show that more people need to step up their game and eliminate these articles by raising a deletion request. These pages probably has little views and no one knows their existence. If no one takes the initiative to delete them, then it's gonna be there forever. Don't try to bring this evidence up to prove your point because anyone can create articles on Wikipedia. And raising deletion request is difficult there would be people like you who will try to oppose the request with senseless arguments. People are also discouraged from raising a deletion request even if they feel this is the right thing to do, because apparently doing this makes them "lose face". Ah! How many faces have I lost by doing this, and responding to nonsense? LOL.

Oh, and how do you know these people are less notable? Why should I believe you? You have absolutely no credibility! Maybe these people are way more notable than Damien and you are just too delusional to know this, because apparently to you Damien is a local superstar when people with the right sound of mind know that he is not. But again, if you think they are less notable, then raise a deletion request! Let other Wikipedia editors to argue whether if they are really less notable.

Quote 21: "I have shown you that HK has 54 newspapers."

I have shown you that the number of newspapers does not affect the chances of a piece of news to be covered in the local press. Grow some eyes.

Quote 22: "Yes if she is the only performer on National Day Parade, but not if she is just one of the hundreds or thousands of performers. Damien was the only performer on that tv show."

ONLY PERFORMER? So you are saying the whole show was dedicated to just showing his performance? Is there such show? Really? I have never heard that a Singaporean tv show was produced just to show a non-notable individual performing Wushu. LOL. This is third time you are lying. Keep the number going. :)

And please don't tell me the show is The Sheng Shiong Show. If it's really that show, then please, it's so obvious that Damien got to perform all because of Dasmond Koh. It's definitely not because he is a notable Wushu practitioner. You can call me out for assuming this, but well, everyone has got eyes to see that it's all because of Damien's connection with Koh.

When she was giving the solo performance, the stage was hers. No other performers was with her on the stage. Basically the time was hers. The whole Singapore was watching her, and just her on TV for the duration of that performance. So how is this different from your so called tv show with Damien as the "only performer"? And again, so should I create an article for my friend because apparently an individual can be warranted one when they perform on tv. If I do not create, my friend would probably lose face. :)

Quote 23: "You can't simply make such assumption and brush it off."

Oh you can assume that he is a notable individual in Singapore and I can't assume that he is popular just because he got a pretty face? Who's the one that is bias here? Are you trying to lose more face? :))

Quote 24: "Obviously you are one who do not read the newspapers."

I really don't. :) But I know how the media industry works. This has nothing got to do with whether I read the papers or watch the TV or not. And you seriously need to get your eyes check because you have once again ignored my point that it is impossible for them to reproduce each others' stories because Mediacorp and SPH are media competitors.

Quote 25: "The fact is that the martial arts school did not do that, but got Damien to be their pin-up poster boy. Ask yourself why."

Because he has a prettier face than the models available? Hahahahahahahahaah!!!!!!!!! What a blessed boy to have such a pretty face.

Quote 26: "The fact is that there is interest aroused among netizens but not for other child actors."

So you mean he is considered a notable individual because the netizens are interested in him because of his good looks? So anyone with good looks is now considered notable? Hmm ok maybe I should feedback this to Wikipedia and create articles for all the random good looking Toms, Dicks, and Harrys in Singapore. :)

At this point, I can't be serious with you anymore. Since I can't talk any sense into you, then I probably should communicate in your language, which is the nonsensical way so that you can understand me. Cheers! :) DerricktanJCW (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All- okay that was exhausting, both reading through the WP:WALLOFTEXT above, and doing searches on all of these non-notable child actors. There are a lot of people with these names, but from what I could find, there is no in-depth coverage of any of these actors, so they fail WP:GNG, and they certainly don't come close to passing WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you so much for this. Finally someone is making sense here! DerricktanJCW (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete them all just not meeting the GNG. 'nuff said.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Onel5969. - TheMagnificentist 17:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google.ai[edit]

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

As a division, does not meet corporate notability. Recommend delete/merge/redirect to Google.

Comment: I am not changing this to a redirect unilaterally, because community discussion is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google.ai is a project within Google and many of their project's have individual pages, such as the related Google Brain project. AI will grow in importance. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references given are not independent. If a separate article for the division is in order, it should be supported with independent reliable sources about the division. I suggest that editors who want this article kept add independent reliable sources while this AFD is running. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and WP:NOT a project announcement board, even for large corporations. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Google as a plausible source term that will preserve whatever small bit of useful information the article has should it become notable in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be enough sources to satisfy notability now, TechCrunch Financial Times Reuters Science Mag - yes it is recent, but the coverage was widespread and multi-faceted, discussing industry wide implications for Amazon and Apple - that seems more then enough to satisfy WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like standard news reporting on IT products. In IT, even minor features get plenty of online mentions. E.g., search for "web clipboard" (a minor feature in Google Docs). — kashmiri ^TALK 08:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe standard, but not typical: Google.ai aims to make state of the art AI advances accessible to everyone. The Transhumanist 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was browsing, and googled "state-of-the-art ai". Google.ai was the second hit in the results (#16 on DuckDuckGoComment It looks like standard news reporting on IT products. In IT, even minor features get plenty of). A couple more down the list was a TechCrunch article on it. So I looked it up on Wikipedia, which is how I wound up here. When something is in the news as prominently as this topic is, people are going to look it up on Wikipedia, which has very broad coverage on Google, spanning dozens of articles. See Outline of Google for a near comprehensive list of them. Google.ai looks like it may be a hotbed of Google activity, similar to how Google X was. Note that Google.ai is not just a division, it is also a website, sort of like Google Labs was. Let's stay on top of this development and provide the coverage our readers have come to expect from Wikipedia. Implied in the reports so far, there will be lots of forthcoming news from and about this division of Google. I think the article should be kept and expanded. The Transhumanist 02:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google being notable because it comes up on Google? Like in WP:GOOGLEHITS? Because "there will be lots of news" sounds like you expected Wikipedia to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this should be closed now OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment expanding on my redirect !vote from above: yes there is reliable coverage, but can the limited coverage that exists be fit reasonably in the main Google article without the need for a separate article? I say yes. Like most tech products, there is more buzz than is likely justified at such an early stage because they have a great marketing department (it is Google), but having this product/service as a separate article so early in its development makes about as much sense as having an iPhone article in 2002 when the NYT ran this article. This is a very early stage concept, and letting it have its own article at this point when it can be in the main article doesn't make sense at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the "keep" !votes address the policy issue – i.e., why in this instance Wikipedia should serve as a product announcement board for a newly started commercial project. Where do we strike balance between reflecting media buzz and the permanent encyclopaedic value that Wikipedia strives to achieve? — kashmiri ^TALK 12:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just did a google search, and I can see articles on Google ai from The Guardian, CNET, Techcrunch. Certainly seems noteworthy for its own article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because it is in the news? — kashmiri ^TALK 21:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please can subsequent !votes address Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOTNEWS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Many articles covering this topic from industry sources like TechCrunch and CNET, in a major development for the entire industry. Artificial Intelligence is an emerging area of noteworthy research and Google's new arm focused on this area is similarly noteworthy, as Google is a significant technology company. Even if this arm was to be subsequently disbanded, it would still be somewhat noteworthy as an attempt made in this area. However, the article itself is sparse and could use more detail. 173.239.207.50 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bus routes in Hong Kong#Eastern Harbour Crossing. Nobody thinks this is notable, but opinion is split for delete vs. redirect. I'm going with redirect per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Harbour Bus Route 606[edit]

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

One of a thousand bus routes in Hong Kong. Not really notable, has no substantial history (created 1989). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Bus routes are rarely notable. Nothing unusual about this one noted. MB 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in Hong Kong#Eastern Harbour Crossing (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the bus route is already mentioned, in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject.
I support preserving the history under the redirect so the content can be reused for a merge to articles like List of bus routes in Hong Kong or so the redirect can be easily undone if editors find significant coverage about the subject.
Cunard (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I would not expect any bus routes to be notable, unless maybe the first route ever or some other historical relevance. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus routes are generally non-notable, and this article has zero sources. As a second choice, redirect per Cunard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Winged Blades^Godric 03:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Pescod[edit]

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

Hong Kong senior civil servant. This article was speedily deleted for notability and copyvio concerns, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 23 decided to send it to AfD to determine the issue of notability. This is a procedural nomination and I am neutral. Sandstein 08:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters terribly, but Pescod is no longer a civil servant. He runs a statutory body independent of the civil service.—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or limited merge. I see a carpet-bomb of references (in what appear to be WP:RS) but they're all local and routine coverage you would expect from a civil servant of his rank. Most of the article reads like a resume (and a good chunk of it is total trivia about his personal life). My own searching finds mostly social media and routine references to his connection with West Kowloon Cultural District. As a WP:ATD, a limited merge to West Kowloon Cultural District might make sense; leave out all the personal trivia about his houses, family, and early schooling, and include just a couple of sentences about his relationship with the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest concerns raised about this article has been its local nature. And it is local. Local like MoMA is local, like Southbank director Jude Kelly is local, like hundreds of other articles that are local in topic, but of wider interest (to, eg, everyone in the contemporary art world, everyone interested in the globally-contentious politics of Hong Kong).

Hong Kong is a de facto city-state of 8 million—that's more than Los Angeles and Chicago combined, for the Americans out there. It is an art world hub rivaled only London and New York. A deeply controversial HK$20B arts project in this tumultuous political atmosphere is of interest, and naturally, so is its chief.

Now to specifics.

"References . . . they're all local . . ." He has been covered by foreign publications CNBC, Variety and the Art Newspaper.

"References . . . they're all . . . routine coverage." No. See WP:NOTROUTINE. Hong Kong Free Press published "Wrong man for the job? Artists express fears over appointment of new West Kowloon CEO" about claims of his unsuitability for the WKCDA. The Harbour Times interviewed him about his role in the recovery of the WKCD project—"Pescod takes the WKCD underground." The SCMP wrote about his involvement in the illegal structures scandal—"Illegal structures found at housing chief's property." Unreferenced coverage includes "Duncan Pescod takes heat for secret arts hub consultancy reports," published six days ago by the Standard, "Can Hong Kong pull off its grandest arts project?" CNBC.

"Most of the article reads like a resume." Writing style or structure can be changed.

"A good chunk of it is total trivia about his personal life." I believe you are referring to the 45 words on his early life—so less than 10% of the article.

"Personal trivia about his houses" I'd be willing to ditch the bit on his Peak mansion, although I'm not sure how trivial it is that the housing chief lived in government-subsidised luxury in one of the most-densely populated cities on the planet. I will not, however, cede the paragraph on his involvement in the widely-covered illegal structures scandal.

"Personal trivia about his . . . family." His wife was mentioned in passing in one sentence, and not even named?

"Personal trivia about his . . . early schooling." There is one sentence about this.

Please let me know if you have any questions.—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Detailed timeline

History
21:53, 07 May – I create the article Duncan Pescod and edit it twice.
22:15, 07 May – Chrissymad tags the page for speedy deletion under criteria G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion and G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. I exchange several messages on the article's talk page with Chrissymad. I edit the article two more times.
23:08, 07 May – Chrissymad removes her citation of the G11 criterion. I edit the page once more.
23:55, 07 May – Article is speedily deleted by SouthernNights under criteria A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and G12.
00:11, 08 May – I speak to SouthernNights who directs me to Deletion Review.
13:26, 09 May – I create a Deletion Review for the article. It gets 2 responses, both recommending sending the issue to AfD.
22:22, 09 May – Cryptic closes the Deletion Review, noting "Copyright violations are never restored."
22:29, 10 May – I begin a conversation with Cryptic. We exchange several messages between the 10th and 19th.
22:43, 19 May – Cryptic suggests I ask SouthernNights to temporarily restore the article without quotes. I do so.
03:14, 22 May – SouthernNights temporarily restores the article without the offending notes under the Sources section so it could come to Deletion Review. 11:19, 23 May – I take the article back to Deletion Review. RoySmith, Cryptic, Hobit, Lankiveil, and DESiegel make recommendations.
03:58, 3 June – Sandstein closes the Deletion Review as Speedy deletion undone and article sent to AfD to determine notability.

Evidence for notability

This man is running a highly controversial semi-independent government agency in a city-state of 8 million people with HK$21.6B budget.
His appointment to the Authority was covered in the media, in a move seen as entrenching of pro-establishment interests in a highly visible and increasingly embarrassing project, as was his promotion to chief of the Authority.
While he was Director of Housing, he was involved in a scandal in which public officials (incl the Chief Executive) were found to have illegal built structures on their properties.
He was the most senior non-Chinese civil servant when he was working directly for the government.
Many other less notable Hong Kong civil servants have articles. See Rita Lau.
He has an entry on Chinese wikipedia—zh:栢志高.

PRESS HIGHLIGHTS Pescod takes the WKCD underground (2016), Pescod elevated to top post at West Kowloon agency (2015), Wrong man for the job? Artists express fears over appointment of new West Kowloon CEO (2015), Illegal structures found at housing chief's property (2012).
Please note that I am only including English written media.

Further argument

Providing information about prominent public officials is one of Wikipedia's noblest achievements.

Is the man running Hong Kong's most ambitious ever arts project (including the building of M+ Museum, which will house biggest & most comprehensive collection of Chinese art in the world) really less notable than Robert Hammond?

See also

Talk:Duncan Pescod

User talk:SouthernNights#Speedy deletion of Duncan Pescod

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 9

User talk:Cryptic#Duncan Pescod DRV

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources on him are in enough detail I think he meets WP:N. And certainly not all of it is positive, so I think this won't be a hagiography (yes, I had to look up how to spell that). Hobit (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh good word! (yes, I had to look up what that meant) —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 00:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Altercari. Deryck C. 23:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Altercari (talk · contribs). Duncan Pescod passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The argument to keep because it's integrated into a template doesn't make much sense, but other than that, there's reasonable arguments for both keeping and merging/redirecting. Nobody wants to delete this outright, which is the only action that would require admin rights, so the discussion about whether to keep or merge can continue on the article talk space. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of praying the rosary[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO. An author hsa described five methods; either this a notable fact, and we should briefly describe his methods (i.e. in-universe information), and at length describe the background, reception, difference with other methods, where this is used, ... Or this is not a notable fact and has received no significant attention in reliable, independent sources, and we shouldn't have an article on it. But as it stands now is this not an acceptable enwiki article. Fram (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "Methods" article is integrated into the template (Template:Rosary). I do agree the article can be expanded with more content, not deleted. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? We should keep this article because it is integrated in a template? That's definitely not a good reason to keep an article. Removing it from the template is no problem and won't make the template any worse (on the contrary, I would say). Fram (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to God Alone, the book in which Montford provides these methods. The target article is barely larger than a stub and can easily accommodate the material here. Or to put it slightly differently, there was never any need to separate this material from the article on God Alone. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. That this is a valid article heading can be seen from e.g. Anne Winston-Allen, Stories of the Rose: The Making of the Rosary in the Middle Ages (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997), which explains how some authors had eight methods, some two, etc.; or Lorenzo F. Candelaria, The Rosary Cantoral: Ritual and Social Design (University of Rochester Press, 2008), which compares the methods recommended by Alanus de Rupe to those of Jacob Sprenger. The article as it stands gives undue weight to a single author, and most of the content (as NewYorkActuary says) would be better in the article on that author's writings. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Andreas Philopater. The detailed discussion of Montfort's methods should be merged to an article on Montfort as per NewYorkActuary; this article should be reduced to a concise summary of Montfort's methods, and then expanded with information on methods from other sources, such as the two sources that Andreas Philopater raises. SJK (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rosary, this is WP:UNDUE coverage of an 18th-century writer who doesn't appear to be an authority on this topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- I am not sure if there is material to merge or not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Keep, Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could have some more sources, though the ones there seem RS. Rosary Beads have been around for a thousand years, and there are various methods of praying with them, referenced in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, no. The only things referenced in the article are some methods described or invented by an 18th century French priest, not a general discussion of what the title suggests, "methods of ...". Reading the article does not give any idea that rosary beads are nearly omnipresent in Roman catholic history of the 2nd millennium and that many methods of praying with them exist and have existed for centuries. It's like writing an article on "war" and only discussing the Thirty Years' War: yes, it is a war, but it is not an article on "war", but on one specfic example. And in the case of the "Methods", it is not even a notable one. Fram (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 13:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PING (software)[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable product. I was unable to find any online reliable sources through my searches. Fails WP:GNG. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If deleted, this should be redirected to Ping#Computing as a plausible redirect, since the ping command is often in all caps (e.g. examples here [2]). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: Hello. Though I'm fine with the possibility of redirection, I'm not sure the example you linked is correct. The correct string is "ping server fred", according to that. I think having it in full caps is a stylization thing as all of the other pages I clicked on from there also had a "CAPS TITLE (Description in normal writing)". Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a stylization that gets use, it's a valid redirect, especially if it's just an alternative capitalization style (see WP:POFR).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced stub, written like an advertisement. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue if this is turned into a redirect from alternate capitalization. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect is possible, but there's no consensus here where to redirect to. Sandstein 06:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Estonia relations[edit]

(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)

whilst the outcome of last AfD was redirect, someone has tried to undo this and recreate the article. so I'm putting it here for community consensus. no resident embassies and the level of trade is miniscule at less than 2 million euros. many companies trade this in a day. the 2 agreements including double taxation are extremely standard in bilateral relations. those wanting to keep must show evidence of third party coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, if consensus is leaning that way, Redirect to "Foreign relations of Estonia" as was the previous destination). Such relations as there are would seem to be entirely run-of-the-mill things for two countries on the same continent. In a sense, there's the moderately remarkable fact that two countries from behind the old Iron Curtain don't do more together, but that hardly makes an article and also isn't desperately remarkable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is more content here than in 2009 when it was first nominated, just compare in the edit history. The duplicate Albania-Estonia relations on the other hand needs to be merged with the correctly dashed version. Tim! (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't presented an argument to how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is (as far as I can see) identical to Albania-Estonia relations (note the different dashes). Both pages used to be a redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia until 25 May 2017, when Iaof2017 added almost exactly the same text to both pages. I think they should probably just be both turned back into a redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. Seagull123 Φ 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Iaof2017 has replied to a comment I left on their talk page about this with this message, It was a mistake :/ i dont know how it happens, i thought the first article were deleted i dont know why but i see now the problem! im sorry. Seagull123 Φ 21:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Albania-Estonia relations or redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ back to Foreign relations of Estonia & protect from recreation to avoid further AfD debates. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
??? Why Foreign relations of Estonia and not Foreign relations of Albania? 216.8.145.227 (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 13:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then; no need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage to comply with WP:GNG. No need for a redirect - not a plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so essentially zero bilateral relations, right? Bearian (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Winged Blades^Godric 03:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabzar Bhat[edit]

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

Not notable beyond news reports of his death Step hen 00:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leader of Hizbul Mujahideen is a significant figure, given the importance to the Kashmir conflict. It's a work-in-progress. His death also sparked unrest and a diplomatic protest from Pakistan. PvOberstein (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: PvOberstein (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 Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for avoidance of doubt, as nom. Step hen 23:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been in the news for about five years, and especially as a militant since his arrest for involvement with the 2015 Udhampur Terrorist Attack. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Smmurphy. And I notice that Smmurphy added to the article. --do ncr am 22:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solid sourcing, meets LASTING, SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment . (Hope I'm doing this right, never encountered a "Relist" before. I previously stated my opinion above, so please don't double-count this). The subject of the article was the commander of a militant organization, who has been in the news for several years, and who's death caused diplomatic protests and days of unrest. Is he Osama bin Laden-level of importance? No. But he's more than a random criminal, and a detailed history of the the modern Kashmir conflict would likely at least make reference to him. Several other articles link here, and the article is well-sourced. PvOberstein (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PvOberstein: I believe the purpose of a relisting is to invite opinions from more editors (rather than the same ones again). Maproom (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good evidence of notability, e.g. "Sabzar Ahmad Bhat — who is believed to have replaced Burhan Wani as the Hizbul Mujahideen’s operational chief in Kashmir — remains one of the top-rated militants of the outfit." Maproom (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic nationalism[edit]

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

Likely failing GNG as undocumented "phenomenon". Not sure how this is "recent". Narcistic nationalism strikes me like a pleonasm that may have been propagated by main stream media to make a point. Are there any academic discussions about this? If not, this article should be deleted. I don't see any difference between recent events as described and e.g. Japanese or Korean protectionism in the 19th century, 1930s/1940s Europe, North Korea since the war or Ba'athist Iraq. All of which are actually far more narcissistic or nationalistic._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC) _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as a coherent subject. There are a couple of books that define it differently than it's current passing usage. Appears to be nothing more that an occasionally-used label lacking a consistent definition.- Mr X 13:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism unsupported by any kind of evidence. Fails the notability test. Also fails the 'does this even exist' test. --Lockley (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO, WP:GNG, and appears also fail WP:OR or WP:SOAP - GretLomborg (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina (drag queen)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their similarity to this one. The reasons for their deletion and change to a redirect are the exact same as this one.

Lack of relevance. Other queens on the show have also had their pages deleted for lack of relevance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Betty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Velour. Most of the points still hold up. It's a minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim to notability is having been a contestant on a reality show. I'd understand if she won the season, the winners tend to have more claims to notability but in this case, she hasn't won. Oath2order (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As per the other discussions. Oath2order (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. *sigh* There are many, many sources that could be used to expand this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Oath2order: Perhaps you are still in the process of rounding up links, but I think this page needs to show that multiple articles have been nominated for deletion. For the record, I think Nina Bo'nina Brown, Trinity Taylor, Valentina (drag queen), and Sasha Velour should all be kept. You've included links above to past discussions resulting in delete/merge votes, but there are many other notable contestants, so one can't simply assume non-notability based on your argument. There are plenty of sources to expand these articles, and this is another trigger nomination. I really wish editors could be given more time to expand articles... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the matter is not that there's sources to expand the article. The issue is that all that they've done is been contestants on a reality show. As far as I'm aware, Valentina, Trinity, Nina, and Sasha have not done anything post-show that qualifies them for relevancy. Side note: You do have plenty of time to expand the articles (minus Sasha because that's already been closed). The Sasha Nomination for Deletion took 6 days to close. Oath2order (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, I'm basing my argument on sourcing, not the fact that they are reality show competitors. Again, there are many notable contestants, so let's not hold show participation against them. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, I tried turning Sasha Velour into a stub and included the AfD nomination template as part of this group nomination, but the article has been redirected despite my appeal on its talk page. There are now drafts at Draft:Sasha Velour and Draft:Sasha Velour (drag queen), and it's quite frustrating that editors can't have an active article to work on in the main space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sasha, given that she has already had a discussion about her, should stay as a redirect until proven otherwise. I'm not holding show participation against them. I'm holding the fact that they have not done anything else notable outside of the show against them. Oath2order (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually true for each of these individuals, but I'll leave that for others to judge. In the meantime, I've requested restoration of the Velour article at Talk:Sasha Velour, before going to deletion review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not true, then I look forward to seeing what you intend on putting on those pages. Good luck. Oath2order (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oath2order: is this a bundled AfD? If so, please make sure it is formatted properly so !voters know what is included. - Bri (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I go about doing that Oath2order (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions are in the link WP:MULTIAFD. Bri (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bri. This is helpful. I knew there was a procedure for bundled AfDs but wasn't sure of a specific page to suggest. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning competitors on reality shows are not automatically deemed to pass WP:GNG just because of the purely WP:ROUTINE coverage that they automatically generate by virtue of being on a reality show — every queen on RPDR, absolutely without exception, always gets a blip of WP:BLP1E coverage in the first day or two immediately after she loses a lipsync and sashays away, so that isn't coverage that can be used to show her as more notable than the norm in and of itself. Rather, what's required is for the substance and sourcing to show her as notable for more than just the fact of being on RPDR itself: Alaska, for example, did not get an article because RPDR, but because she leveraged her RPDR exposure into recording an album that hit the Billboard charts. (And then she won AS2, yes, but that was just gravy because she'd already cleared WP:NMUSIC.) The queen who wins the season in a few weeks will get an article on that basis — but merely being on the season is not grounds for a standalone article in and of itself, and anybody who doesn't win still has to build her notability the same way as any queen who wasn't on the show at all: by working her kitty off and getting media coverage for that. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to know if any of these queens will manage that. And just to be clear, I'm a loyal RPDR viewer who gets together with my gaggle of gays every week at the bar to watch it in a party atmosphere — although I'm going to miss the finale this year because I have to go out of town for family stuff, harrumph harrumph — so this is not about lack of familiarity with any of them. But "was on a reality show" is not a Wikipedia inclusion criterion in and of itself — regardless of whether they're a drag queen on RPDR or an EMS worker appearing on Survivor, a person gets an article either for winning a reality show, or for leveraging their 15 minutes of fame into something more than "appeared on a reality show and lost, the end." Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning above and WP:NOTABILITY Brocicle (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the notability criteria. Appeared on a TV show and lost. Thousands of people do that every year. Yintan 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, someone appearing on a TV show and losing is not a reason to delete an article. We need to base our reasoning on secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that secondary coverage has to be in the context of more than just the WP:ROUTINE level of coverage that every RPDR queen will always get while the show is running. Every queen gets a handful of "WHY THE HELL DID YOU LEAVE THE MASK ON, VALENTINA?" interviews in Entertainment Weekly and Bustle the next morning after she sashays away — not one losing queen in the entire history of the show has ever failed to garner a brief spike of WP:BLP1E coverage in those first few days. What we require is that the secondary coverage sustains itself beyond that initial blip of "was on the show and lost" and into "did something else notable afterward". As I already noted, for example, Alaska didn't qualify for an article right away the moment she sashayed away the first time just because a couple of "Alaska sashays away" articles appeared in the media outlets that consistently grant that type of coverage to every queen who sashays away every week — she qualified for one when she cleared WP:NMUSIC by releasing an album and getting secondary source coverage for that. (And then she won AS2, granted, but her NMUSIC pass meant the article was already in place before that happened.) Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you fail to read the first sentence of my !vote, Another Believer? Cheers, Yintan 06:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: I don't mean to be difficult here, but I still don't think this nomination has been submitted properly via WP:BUNDLE. Are we discussing just Valentina, or multiple individuals? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now? Oath2order (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The additions should have been placed at the top of the page, so that the bundling is clear right up front, rather than at the bottom of the page so that a newcomer has to read the whole discussion to find out. I've moved it up as an addendum to your original nomination statement accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all three – I do not see any independent notability enough to warrant a separate article now. All that is present is easily presentable in the season 9 article of RPDR. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valentina might not have done anything at the moment but let's wait until the show has ended before considering to delete this page. Also I basically filled it. Sorry...Littlerocketeer (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not kept just because the subject might accomplish something more notable in the future than they have as of today; any editor could claim that about literally anything or anyone that exists at all. We keep or delete an article on the basis of whether a valid notability claim, and the depth of reliable source coverage needed to support it, already exists today. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to the bundling issue. Early comments were on the nominated page only, not the later bundle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect each page to the relevant season page. Oath2order (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nina and Valentina as a completely run of the mill drag queens and/or reality contestants. As noted, we almost always delete articles about TV reality show contestants except those who win, place, and show. Generally, for a drag queen to be notable, she must be a queen first; she has to have won a major title such as "Miss Gay Maryland", "Homecoming Queen" of Cherry Grove, New York, "Miss Fire Island", or "Empress of New York". Having known such "royalty", I can see Nina and Valentina aren't there yet. Like Bearcat, I've seen a few drag shows in my day. Furthermore, I am proud to be personal friends with a few. Trinity is a marginal case; she allegedly won titles out of Parliament House and The Edge, two nationally-known venues. If sourced, she might be notable. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be fair and point out that holding a title on the traditional pageant circuit is not the only way a drag queen can attain notability for our purposes. It's certainly a path to notability, but I can think of many queens who attained notability without going that route at all: Alaska Thunderfuck and Jackie Beat (and RuPaul, for that matter) did it with music, Bianca Del Rio and Peaches Christ did it with comedy — in fact, Wikipedia probably has more articles about drag queens who attained their notability without going anywhere near the pageant circuit than we do about traditional pageant queens. (In fact, I know we do, given that the only queen in the entire Miss Gay America who actually has an article is Alyssa Edwards, and trust me when I say that RPDR has far more to do with why she has an article than Miss Gay America does.) So no, these girls don't necessarily have to win a pageant title per se to become notable — but apart from the queen who wins next Friday, they do have to accomplish something more than just being on a season of a reality show and having Instagram followers. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three: Only claim to notability is a single losing reality show appearance (covered in extreme depth), fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow recounting of reality TV series. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hail To The King: 60 Years of Destruction[edit]

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

A funded and completed Kickstarter project that did get nominated for an award at a small genre film fest, it fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG with nothing in the way of press coverage in reliable sources that would suggest notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's possible there may be some Japanese sources out there I can't find. I've tagged it for the above delsort page accordingly, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' -- "released online" is hardly a claim to notability. I was not able to find sources that discuss the movie directly and in detail, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'delete does not meet GNG. looks unpromising when sourced from kickstarter.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGeofiction[edit]

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

Not sure if it passes WP:GNG. It has been around for a long time, but not much of discussions/mention of it online. So instead of ProD, I brought it to AfD, so the subject can be discussed by multiple editors. Thank. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage ([3]) in reliable sources- no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage either, which is fundamental to demonstrating notability. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research & no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Page is not substantially different from previous incarnation. kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumith Edirisinghe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous AfD this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Was a hockey player but never played for the national team or received any significant notable award. A non-notable service award for hockey administration isn't notable enough. Dan arndt (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Aunty Jack Show. After the merge, redirect for the reasons outlined by SpinningSpark -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Nine Show[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aunty Jack's Travelling Show: these are five more episodes of the same series which were created after that discussion was initiated, but did not get caught or bundled into the original batch in time. But they're still subject to the same problems as the first set: they offer no substance or sourcing to demonstrate the standalone notability of each episode, and are referenced entirely to episode guides and IMDb, rather than reliable source media coverage about the episodes. As always, every individual episode of a TV series is not granted an automatic presumption of standalone notability as a separate topic -- you need to show quite a lot more real-world context about the episode to get it over the bar, not just a basic plot summary. Many TV programs only have one or two episodes that actually warrant standalone articles separately from the series as a whole, and many more than that have none. What's required to get an episode over the bar in its own right is reliable source coverage that's specifically about that episode itself -- but none is being shown for any of these. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them - I didn't see the first AfD; sorry. The Aunty Jack Show was as notable in Australia, in its day, as Seinfeld or The Simpsons. We have articles on every episode of those two shows. Aunty Jack should not be given less treatment because it is Australian, or was on TV before the Internet age. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of television shows do not have separate articles about each individual episode. What determines whether that gets to happen or not is whether enough reliable sources cover the episode in enough depth to give it context for why a separate article is needed — mere plot summaries and cast lists simply do not cut it. The Puppy Episode of Ellen, for example, is the only episode of its entire series that actually has (or ever will have) its own standalone article — and it qualified for one not because it existed, but because it's been extensively analyzed by reliable sources as one of the most overarchingly important moments in the entire history of LGBT representation in media. The standard that a television episode has to meet to qualify for a separate article is "noteworthy and substantive context", not "IMDb verifies that it existed". Yes, there are a few shows (Seinfeld and The Simpsons are two examples; Star Trek is another one) that have been so extensively written about by reliable sources that almost every episode can actually support a standalone article — but that's not a treatment that any show automatically gets just because of one user's subjective assertions of importance, it's a treatment that reliable source coverage about the episodes has to be there to support. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Aunty Jack Show then delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge and redirect, the substantive content of all these articles is just a couple of sentences, so they can easily be accomadated in the main article. I don't get why User:Dennis Brown is calling for delete after merge. First of all, the history needs retaining for attribution reasons after a merge, and secondly redirects are cheap and these will help anyone searching on an episode title to find the right place. SpinningSpark 12:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Dunwoodie[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly satisfies WP:NHOCKEY in that he has played 285 games in the AIHL, which is the highest level of competition in Australia; and he has played for the Australian national team at the Ice Hockey World Championships. Dan arndt (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found for this player that would not be considered routine coverage, so this person fails GNG (regardless of NHOCKEY). @Dan arndt: please read NHOCKEY again, nowhere does it say "highest level of competition in a country/nation", only Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league (and the AIHL is not even professional). NHOCKEY also clearly states in the very first line: 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. Adding any other leagues or personal interpretations needs to be verified. As to the IIHF World Championships, Australia has never competed for the World Championship, they have only competed in the second and third tiers of the IIHF tournaments used in order to be promoted to the top division and compete for the world championship (which, is also clearly stated in NHOCKEY#6). Yosemiter (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both NHOCKEY and GNG.18abruce (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassian Delsar[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played over 130 games in the AIHL, the highest level of competition in Australia and has been a member of the national team, representing Australia at a number of World Championships. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Drastically fails GNG, the player barely even has any WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails NHOCKEY by playing in an amateur league that has not been proven to meet GNG consistently and in the third tier of the IIHF tournaments. Yosemiter (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he passes either GNG or NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bus routes in Hong Kong#Cross-Harbour Tunnel. The consensus is clearly for either delete or redirect, with the two keep !votes being of the OSE variety. No harm in the redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Harbour Bus Route 112[edit]

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

Another un-notable bus route, one of thousands. Article is also unreferenced. MB 15:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it clearly isn't the most important article in the encyclopaedia, there are many others like it and it is a beautiful example of its type. Harmless and charming. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altercari: WP:ILIKEIT. Nördic Nightfury 16:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Nightfury, the passage you linked to is about liking the topic or subject, and arguing that the article about that subject should be kept for that reason. Oddly enough, I don't have much of a subjective opinion – positive or negative – on the subject of Cross-Harbour Bus Route 112. That said, I see no reason to get rid of this article. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 17:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Nördic Nightfury 16:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish notability and reads more like a timetable than a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article conforms to the standard of other bus route articles on Wikipedia, encompassing both the history of the route and current service pattern. See London Buses route 23 and Template:London bus routes for example. Deryck C. 18:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck Chan: Are you able to provide sources for any information on the page? As it stands, there are no sources at all on the article, hence the reason it has been nominated for deletion. As you stated, the London Bus article you referenced is an example of a good article, but it isn't written to the same quality as the nomination.Nördic Nightfury 09:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is a more serious issue. This tool has some info. The Chinese version has one citation and a handful of external links that may be useful. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in Hong Kong#Cross-Harbour Tunnel (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the bus route is already mentioned, in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject.
I support preserving the history under the redirect so the content can be reused for a merge to articles like List of bus routes in Hong Kong or so the redirect can be easily undone if editors find significant coverage about the subject.
Cunard (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I would not expect any bus routes to be notable, unless maybe the first route ever or some other historical relevance. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TH1980. Bus routes are generally non-notable. As a second choice, redirect per Cunard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Platinum Blonde (band). So Why 07:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Yeah Yeah (The Blondes album)[edit]

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

While the band is notable, this album of theirs isn't. Searches did not turn up nearly enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it quite clearly does. It has to pass one of the listed criteria, and it passes #2. Everyone But You (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No criteria in NALBUM hands an album an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about the album to get it over WP:GNG. Sourceability is the one overarching condition that an album always has to meet regardless of what other NALBUM criteria it can also claim to pass — none of the NALBUM criteria exempt the album from having to be sourceable as the subject of media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Platinum Blonde (band) until it has coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per KGirlTrucker. Not every album by a notable band gets an automatic presumption of independent notability just for existing, but this one really has no significant claim to passing WP:NALBUM. It did far worse on the charts than any of the band's prior albums (it's the first album of their career which the discography list in their main article lists no chart position for at all), and it didn't spawn any noteworthy singles (its only single also peaked the lowest in the RPM100 of any song listed in their singles discography either.) Basically, it's an album that utterly stiffed and led the band to break up — it was literally 22 years before they released another album after this. There's just no independent notability claim to be made here at all, which means there are no grounds for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was it a commercial disappointment? Sure. But did it spawn a charted single? Yes. Did the album itself chart? The RPM site is down right now, but I'll keep checking to see if it made it to a national chart. May have also charted on The Record charts ... those aren't on-line, but I can check at the reference library next time I'm down there. Certainly got reviewed in RPM. It's unquestionably marginal, but it's not un-notable. Everyone But You (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It spawned a single that peaked at #75 out of 100 — a peak that wouldn't be enough in and of itself to get the band an article if that had been the best claim of notability and the only source they could have come up with. And since almost every album in existence will get at least one published review somewhere, deeming an album to be notable also requires more than just showing that one publication reviewed it. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. There are dozens upon dozens of bands/artists that have articles with only one low charting single on the charts to their name. Off the top of my head, three of them include Richard and the Young Lions (one week at #99 for "Open Up Your Door"); Cellarful of Noise (peaked at #69 with "Samantha"); and Gerry Cott ("Alphabet Town" peaked at #90). The guidelines give no indication that the position at which a record charted is germane to the perceived importance of an artist, merely that it charted.

Don't agree with the guidelines? Have a go over there, and get 'em changed. It's quite clear that as currently written, the guidelines support notability regardless of chart position. Everyone But You (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the original participants in writing the NMUSIC guidelines in the first place, dude — so I'm just about the last person on Wikipedia with whom you could credibly pull off an "I know the rules better than you do" argument. At any rate, just for clarity's sake, this is how NMUSIC works: the one make or break condition that every album always has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article is that it has been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG. If that condition is properly met, then any chart position is fine (and even failing to chart at all wouldn't be the dealbreaker, since charting is only one of several possible notability claims) — but if the sourceability condition isn't met, then no chart position hands the album an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of proper sourcing. Whether the chart position was high or low isn't the crux of the problem here: the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about an album is the be-all and end-all of whether the album gets a Wikipedia article or not. An album can peak completely out of the top 100 and still get an article if it's properly sourceable as passing GNG, and an album can peak at #1 and not get an article if for some reason it isn't properly sourceable as passing GNG (which is probably quite rare, but very much possible.) Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "pull" anything. I'm reading the guidelines. They're quite clear. If you helped write them, fine! But if they don't say what you mean them to say, then you need to take ownership of that, and acknowledge that they were written poorly. Right now, they clearly state that the chart position supports notability.

In any event, I'm going to head to the reference library next week for archived Canadian music magazines to see if there are write-ups, reviews, chart info, etc., for this release. I certainly agree that there could be more sourcing on the article. Everyone But You (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What NMUSIC "clearly" says is that chart position supports notability if an article is sourced properly, and that chart position does not confer an automatic notability freebie that inherently exempts an album from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not seeing a benefit to merger. Artw (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit to merger: lack of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASR Stadium road[edit]

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

Not notable. Just another intra-city road in a city. This article was PROD'ed a few days ago, the tag was removed after adding source. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication as to why the road itself is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, and the sources only mention the road in passing. Notability is not inherited from the locations found on it. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Taylor[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 08:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Prolific character – I definitely recognize him – though I'm not sure he was ever in the main cast of a TV show. Thus, to confirm notability, the article would need to demonstrate that the subject received independent coverage (e.g. as a prolific character actor). While it's possible the subject did receive that kind of coverage, the article currently fails to demonstrate that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while a working actor, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the earlier article was rightly deleted as being premature, this article has a consensus for keep. The one dissenting !vote (other than the nom), appears to have been rebutted by another editor. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetiee Weds NRI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An earlier edition of this article was (rightly) deleted before the film was released, due to a lack of any real coverage. While the film has been released now - which is why my earlier CSD tag as recreated content was declined - I don't see anything in the sources provided or elsewhere much which established any real notability for this film. With the exception of an interview with one of the people involved, the only mentions I'm finding are entirely in passing, which argues against notability for the present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think enough references been provided in the article to establish notability, They just needs to be re-coded accordingly. No use in deleting the article as the film has had wide release in India and in future the article will surely be revived again if deleted. 2405:204:C103:4903:3667:DEF2:7807:C57A (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "existence" and "notability", though, which is the issue here. I'm not denying that the film has been released and widely, but in the absence of any coverage beyond "this film exists", it's not desperately encyclopedic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case and we only kept films that were extremely popular then we can delete half of film pages on Wikipedia. Instead of deleting add tags for better references. The page is sure to prop up again in future.2405:204:C103:4903:714D:D3D4:1CC7:5749 (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that only films which are "extremely popular" get articles, because that's patently not true. What I said was that films get articles if they are able to demonstrate significant, third-party coverage. Some films can do that before they're released, some films can do that shortly after they've been released, and some need to take longer than that. Some, of course, never get that level of coverage. If this film attracts that level of coverage later, there's nothing to stop the article being re-created then. Unless and until it does, I'd suggest we leave the WP:CRYSTALBALL alone. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable film. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: How is the article a "promo page"? It does not have a promotional tone whatsoever, and is written quite neutrally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep per sourcing showing WP:NF is met. Concerns toward format can be corrected through regular editing. Deletion does not serve Wikiepedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IE: Found a full review in Times of India. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough coverage to meet WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not sure why it was relisted, with a very clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell Group[edit]

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

Non-notable company. A WP:BEFORE search indicates [[4] no] significant coverage in reliable sources. The few mentions of the company [to be found] are, when not just passing mentions (therefore insufficient to pass WP:ORGCRITE), composed of blogs, press releases, and . Likewise, there is o depth of coverage in the sources provided- they are all primary and self-published, and so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As is so often the case in developing countries, the news landscape may be a bit patchy. Honeywell Group is a significant organisation in Nigeria and there is (IMO) sufficient third party coverage in Nigerian media, as evidenced as follows: MoU with regional government for development, JV with General Electric, Potential spin-off of subsidiaries, Legal dispute with bank, Agreement with US Trade and Development, Commendation by Nigerian government for social responsibility _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in Nigeria, listed on the NSE. Certainly passes WP:NCORP ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated comment: Being listed in NSE doesn't translate to notability though. Darreg (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article to include sources with depth such as the Oxford business group, world economic forum and Ventures Africa and strongly believe the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurajRokafela (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per what Mahveotm said. it does qualify WP:NCORP a little WP:C/E may be needed but certainly, it is of encylopedic value.Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Jake Brockman —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Parking lot. The current consensus seems to be to merge the relevant portions into the Parking Lot article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parking crater[edit]

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

POV fork, essentially a duplication of other article's subject. Anmccaff (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit amusing to me that the creator won't even link to Parking lot in the first sentence, relegating it to see also. I'd say redirect to Parking lot since we do seem to have some popular usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as drivers will park anywhere i initially thought this would be a discussion about how quickly they us a space cleared by an asteroid impact, anyhow this looks like a redirect and a couple of sentences at Parking lot.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from Europe! While it sounds like the existence of this type of "crater" is a foregone conclusion in North America, I found the concept interesting as an outsider, since I don't believe we have many of these here. That said, the current article clearly has some flaws. I would suggest keeping the article, adding academic citations to balance the popular ones and putting up a neutrality flag. And yes, as Shawn in Montreal said, they should link out to the page for Parking Lots early in the article. If I have time, I'll go ahead and make those changes soon. Cajunerich (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that some articles attract so many single-purpose accounts? Anmccaff (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anmccaff. I can't speak for others, but in my case, the deletion suggestion itself was what brought me here. A CityLab article on the parking crater in Los Angeles was shared with me by a friend who lives there, and I had never heard the term before, so I looked up more information about it. Seeing that the page was about to be deleted was enough to prompt me to sign up for an account and put my vote in for the page's survival. Now there is of course no easy way to prove that I'm in Europe, but if you look at the timestamps on my posts, they would indicate at the very least a pretty dedicated American user, since that type of thing would involve either staying up very late or getting up very early to type! As I said, that's not by any stretch an air-tight proof of location, but I hope it helps. Cheers! Cajunerich (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say, possibly knowing nothing about how wiki works, you came in -coming from the country that contemporaneously destroyed one of the last intact medieval cities to get some low grade lignite, made a snotty remark about North America? Hmmm.

It's a bad thing to have a single thing covered in different articles, because they tend to become focused different ways. The idea that vasty fields of asphalt might not improve a central business district, and, that, indeed, a central business district need not be restricted to 9-5 uses needs to be in the main article, whatever that may be. If it's in the apropriate article, why should it be duplicated? And why, especially, should it be duplicated under a tendentious name? Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I unintentionally touched a nerve, and for that I am sorry. Both of our countries have made plenty of policy mistakes in the past and will surely continue to make policy mistakes in the future. I was in no way trying to offend, and I assure you that I merely found the topic interesting, since we have parking lots here but generally lack what would be considered "parking craters," if I am understanding the term correctly. As for the choice of which term to use, it seems that "parking craters" is the phrase people are generally using to describe this phenomenon. If there's a more neutral term that's already being used in the "parking lots" article to describe this phenomenon, it might be worth mentioning here, so that any eventual merge edits can be made in that part of the page, rather than being duplicated elsewhere in what appears to be a fairly long article. I would modestly suggest that if this phenomenon is not yet mentioned on that parking lots page, you might put a sentence or two in, linking out to the page we're debating for more context. I again assure you: No snark or snottiness was intended, but I think this phenomenon is very much worth documenting.

In any case, though, it looks like I have a secondary problem: Someone appears to think I'm some guy from Chicago. I could say that I ate Kaufland corn flakes for breakfast today, had Birell with my lunch and went hiking in the local mountains in the afternoon, and while all of those things would be true, you would have to take my word for it, which I don't think I can reasonably expect you to do. In light of that doubt, I'm going to hold off on making any of the edits I mentioned above, since there's a very high chance that they would be considered suspect anyway and/or reversed. I've submitted my opinion on this talk page, which was the main point of registering anyway. I leave it to others to decide how this plays out. Good luck. Cajunerich (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's good news; the secondary problem is quite easy to fix. Simply mention there that you ain't involved. Remember, no one said -you- individually were a sock puppet, meat puppet, or canvased in, merely that the number of people surfacing suggested something else was going on. Anmccaff (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)wa[reply]

Merge into parking lot. I agree this seems too much like a POV push. I think merging it into the parent article seems like a better way to keep it up to date and avoid POV issues. It also seems too narrow in scope to be stand alone. Springee (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Parking lot. There does appear to be some traction for the term, but I don't see how the subtle and somewhat subjective differences in the choice of term justify a standalone article. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The Parking lot article is about, well, parking lots - individual lots and various attributes of them (although the "parking minimum" section does touch upon larger issues). This article is more about large areas of cities devoid of buildings due to the placement of large parking lots. The current article is lousy, and should focus much more on the sociological/urban planning/historical preservation aspects. A parking lot can be small and can be anywhere (urban/suburban/rural). A parking "crater" can only be in a city and is large enough to stand out as an area "missing" the buildings that would otherwise be expected. I don't think this difference is subtle. Searching shows much usage of the term going back at least 5 years. Here is an example about Tulsa changing zoning laws to discourage demolition of buildings for parking [5]. Here is a link with more background and the supposed origin of the term [6]. MB 05:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you clean up and improve the relevant articles, they'll come to mirror each other, and what use is that? The effects of mega-parking, real and imaginary, on cities belongs on Wiki; it just doesn't belong in a piece of partisan POV-pushing polemic. The term "parking crater" is used and meant to be used as a loaded term; that isn't appropriate for an article, any more than Ford Exploder, Hellary Rod-man or Der Manatee-Fuhrer would be. Anmccaff (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy (WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING) say the common name should be used even if there is an appearance of bias. Searching on "Parking Crater" returns dozens of hits. That is the term a reader would be expected to search for in WP if looking for more information. The article certainly should be neutral and cover reasons that "parking craters" are desirable (convenience, best ROI to the property owners, etc.) assuming such info can be properly sourced. MB 19:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and a search on "urban parking lot" turns up tens of thousands, yes. This isn't a "common name", and is only seen as such connected to a particular POV. The article about the thing shouldn't be named for it. The examples given in WP:NPOVNAME reflected dominant usage over decades or centuries, not a year and a half of echo-chambered blog-blather. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

an "urban parking lot" is any parking lot in an urban area, including any 5-car lot at a convenience store. Anything about the mechanics of urban parking lots (which is what mostly I see when searching on the term), like landscaping, lighting, pollution from runoff, etc. should be covered in Parking Lot. "Parking crater" is the common name for large areas of cities being demolished for parking. I see usage going back more than 5 years, so I think this term has sufficiently "gained traction" to be notable. MB 20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Usage within the article and from ready hits on search engines shows that this simply is not true. The term is used for any divergence from an imaginary ideal city layout caused by visible parking areas. Look at the examples that show in the "parking crater" contests; e.g. Boston's Fan Pier, where it reflects use for parking in an area that was never historically built up. It is used for a visual created by centering a illustration of parking acreage on a county map. It is used for identical volumes of parking acreage centered on street corners, as opposed to mid-block. It is used for new build of transit parking in suburban areas. Anmccaff (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Parking lot. At best this is a fork. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Agents Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. What's listed in the article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:AUD. Has been previously deleted at AfD in 2011 and then recreated by a SPA account: Special:Contributions/LivingLegend2. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: An article describing an insurance intermediary firm, recreated by a WP:SPA 10 days after the previous AfD deletion (also after a Request for Undeletion by another WP:SPA account had been declined). As the nomination says, the coverage provided is routine and I am not anything to indicate more than a run-of-the-mill company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Per AllyD; this appears to be enough of a sock-magnet that its continued existence is purely disruptive at this point. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Per AllyD above. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 single delete !vote's issues seems to have been ameliorated. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure of Cheste[edit]

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

Treasure of Cheste was created in Jan. of 2010, but has only seen seven edits since then, 2 by bots. A Google search shows no hits for the item, and while it does show hits for a similar "Treasure of Chester", that's in the US, not in Spain. The one source it mentions in the article, a study partially exists on Google, but I can't find a result of a study perfectly matching the name offered in the article. Further more, the book was only available for sale by 2 local online regional vendors on sale, and was not on Amazon or eBay. While this does not confirm anything, it is suspicious that the book is not on top book sites, and is not in stock. Does it not exist anymore? Suspicious, I looked in the Library of Congress archives, nothing even in PDF form or online form. No notable, 3rd party news articles on Google News, odd since local media would usually cover an artifact found this old and so important to Spain. Growing even more suspicious, I looked at the edit history of the article. The original creator, SergiBCN2 had created the article in 2010, but what is odd is it was his first edit and then he disappeared for 4 years, not editing it again. After that, an IP edited the article, 62.57.44.164, just 4 hours after the article was created and then he disappeared, but he never came back and that was his only edit. Then in 2014, after 4 years of inactivity, Helga ru edited the page. But what is surprising is that all 47 of his edits were made in five days, almost all of them trying and requesting to create the museum page, for where this item was hosted and then editing this page, and then he too was gone. Other then these 3, no one has made any sizeable edits to this page. Museum page only cites own website as source, and that website has no mention of this. Violation of WP:V and WP: N. Possibly a hoax? Image was added by creator of article, but does not look professional, looks faked, with no trace of the original anywhere on the net. Please check the article's edit histories and diffs, all of the user's involved contribs and do all of the verification searches I have done before commenting. My opinion is leaning ~~Delete~~, possibly a hoax Hitterneuron (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a possible hoax based on the name, I see no references that don't point back to wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is not a hoax, see the official website of the municipality of Cheste which in the history page discusses the hoard ie. "In the area we are dealing with, the Cheste treasure, also known as the "de la Safa" treasure, is of great importance. It is proof of the pressure generated by the Punic in Levantine lands and their penetration into the interior" (thankyou gtranslate), that said, without more sources, this article could be ~~deleted~~ with possibly history of Cheste section being expanded. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps. this article is also found in the spanish wiki at Tesoro de Cheste, the article creator there appears to be the same editor as here and appears to be more active there. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as for the book used as a reference in the article, Tesoros monetarios de Valencia y su entorno it definitely exists, Worldcat shows it is held by 18 libraries throughout the world and here is a review of the book by the Journal of Roman Archaeology. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, thanks for proving me wrong. However, the book even by what you mentioned would be hard to find. The study seems credible, but without other sources, would not be worth a stand-alone article. Nothing seems to be online, and the source you mentioned, would not go very indepth. I would support talking about this on the homepage of Cheste and making a area for it, or just adding on would be even better to the Cheste article (town itself) Thanks. Hitterneuron (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a hoax, and the difficulty of locating a book doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source. I imagine Spanish-language books on numismatics typically don't have a wide circulation. GBooks and GScholar searches for "Cheste hoard" (a better translation than the current title) turn up enough mentions in English sources for a short article [7][8][9][10][11], and there are almost certainly more in Spanish. Its entry in this catalogue of coin hoards lists eleven scholarly sources that discuss it (as of 1979). – Joe (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article using these references. It's quite an interesting find, really. I'm imagining some mercenary hiding his ill-gotten gains before going off to meet a sticky end in the Second Punic War. – Joe (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe. Since the sources are found here, I would lean towards a Keep now, but consensus can decide. Hitterneuron (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work by Joe, article now shown to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 ^talk 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives International[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton event. Lacks GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the highest level International tournament held in Maldives and sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation and Badminton Asia Confederation.Stvbastian (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highest level sports event in badminton in Maldives, with the likes of Carolina Marin, P. V. Sindhu and others participating; covered extensively by reliable sources...[12][13][14][15] Lourdes 17:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major international tournament, covered by reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Mehran[edit]

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

Not a notable business. PROD removed in exchange for references which still fail to establish notability Ajf773 (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRAVELGUIDE / WP:PROMO for an unremarkable hotel. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's points. Needs to meet N. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article which does little more than advertise the convenient location and amenities of a hotel. Mention of the hotel in relation to nearby road construction plans is not significant coverage of the hotel itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability and "proof something exists" aren't the same thing - this article is based purely on the latter, without satisfying the former. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Middlesex Family History Society[edit]

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

I can't find anything meaningful to add after I previously CSDed it, and admin declined it, and undeleted. Fails GNG and NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence or claim of notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems I have to justify this entry again. If you know Family History then you will know there are about one Family History Society per county in the UK, some probably more notable than others. WMFHS was started in 1978 so passes the test of time. It publishes a journal 4 times a year, with ISSN 01452-517, now at its approx 150th issue. It is affiliated to Federation of Family History Societies, which of course has its own Wiki page, as does Family History Society, which refers to WMFHS. Both the journal and the website have won awards in the past for quality. The Society supplies family history data to Findmypast, now totalling 234,000 records. Other FHS are listed in Wiki (see Family History Society, so I cannot see why WMFHS is in question. Some people go crazy about American highways, others go crazy about Family History research. It takes all types. Perhaps the real test of 'notability' today for a society is whether the society's website is easily found using Google. If you google any of WMFHS, or West Middlesex FHS, or West Middlesex Family History, the society's home page is always top of the hit list. Surely that is notable.Roland Bostock (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notabilty. Googling WMFHS, or West Middlesex FHS, or West Middlesex Family History is hardly likely to produce any other more notable societies with the same name. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Proving being notable is tough. Do other websites refer to WMFHS? of course they do. Are they reliable? of course. So perhaps I have to give a couple of examples. Findmypast is a highly reliable source of information. Example of page from Find My Past citing WMFHS as the source for a dataset on Monumental Inscriptions. The Federation of Family History Societies is also highly reliable. This is its page listing its affiliated societies, of which WMFHS is one.Roland Bostock (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Initially, I thought with the recent spate of interest in genealogy, that a site like this would light up the search engines like Times Square. However, other than listings and mentions, I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG. Article does not actually assert significance. Closing admin might note that article creator !voted twice.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the sources discovered in the discussion). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Pierre-Antoine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Through these sources: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] he seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Not to offend contributing editors, but it is obvious that the article is poorly written and vastly under-sourced, but doesn't warrant deletion. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the references found by SavvyJack23 (other than #2, which is a brief mention), are enough to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct Nature[edit]

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

I have been unable to find information in reliable independent sources about this band. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Billboard listing referenced in the article indicates that the group appears to have had a music video on MuchMusic, so that potentially meets WP:MUSICBIO #11. That said, I'm not convinced that's enough to warrant a page given that I'm unable to find any other information on the band in reliable sources that would satisfy any of the guideline's other criteria, or WP:GNG. gongshow talk 08:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Gongshow — getting playlisted on MuchMusic would certainly pass NMUSIC #11 if the article were sourced properly, but it's not enough to get the band an automatic inclusion freebie if apart from the nominal playlisting confirmation they're so unsourceable otherwise that we can't even actually provide the band members' names (and as far as I can tell their names have never been in the article at all!) And even on a ProQuest search, I can't find any stronger sourcing either — I can find a few glancing acknowledgements of their existence in pro forma lists of "this week's new releases in record stores", but I can find nothing which constitutes substantive coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Digital Radio Tracker". www.digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 11 June 2017.

[2] "Digital Radio Tracker". www.digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 11 June 2017.

[3] "DRT Charts Website". digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

[4] "About DRT Charts". www.digitalradiotracker.com. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

[5] "VENTS Magazine 69th Issue Pg. 182". calameo.com. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

[6] "Khing Jus Wurk | Entrepreneur Podcast Network - EPN". epodcastnetwork.com. Retrieved 13 June 2017.

[7] "khing jus wurk - Google Search". g.co. Retrieved 13 June 2017.

[8] "trademark: KHING JUS WURK (serial no. 86959542)". www.tmfile.com. Retrieved 13 June 2017.

[9] Womack, Amelia. "Every Vote Counts For The Greens". HuffPost UK. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[10] Woodcock, Andrew (13 May 2017). "Green Party vows to decriminalise prostitution". The Independent. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[11] "Decriminalise prostitution, Green Party urges". BBC News. 13 May 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[12] "Deputy leader of Green Party to visit Winchester today". Hampshire Chronicle. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[13] Stone, Jon (28 March 2017). "Daily Mail formally reported to press regulator over 'Theresa May legs' front page". The Independent. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[14] Nagesh, Ashitha (13 May 2017). "Lib Dems pledge to legalise weed while Greens promise to legalise sex work". Metro. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[15] George, Rob (17 May 2017). "Greens pledge 28-day mental health referral". Worcester Observer. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[16] "Decriminalise prostitution, Green Party urges". BBC News. 13 May 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[17] "Green Party's deputy leader Amelia Womack joins Jack Lenox on Copeland by-election campaign trail". www.timesandstar.co.uk. February 21, 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[18] Mortimer, Josiah (29 July 2016). "Q&A – Deputy leader candidate Amelia Womack: "I'm proud of my achievements over the past two years"". Bright Green. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[19] "#Election2017 - Deputy Leader of the Greens in York tomorrow". Minster FM. 6 April 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[20] Knights, Emma (21 April 2017). "Green Party unveils its manifesto for next month's local elections in Norwich". Eastern Daily Press. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]