Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 March 17 March >

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The result was withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harmathèque[edit]

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

Seemingly NN website/company with no coverage I've been able to find to meet WP:CORP or even WP:GNG. Lots of individual references to the site, but nothing about the web site or company to pass the bar. Failed CSD for reasons that are not clear. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ridiculous, this was even a subscription with the Wiki Library. "A number of major educational institutions have a subscription to site, " should make it notable in itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A bizarre nomination. The first page of a Google search gives [1], [2] and [3], reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. Perhaps the nominator was restricting the search to English language sources? French sources are just as valid in establishing notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Aymatth2. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAW: by nom per links brought forth. Who subscribes is irrelevant, however. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdraw.. I've been persuaded both by the arguments here and by User:Geopenguin that this article passes WP:ACADEMICS#C1 and WP:ACADEMICS#C2. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cinzia Verde[edit]

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

Simply fails WP:GNG, mainly due to the lack of independent sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 03:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That "Career and impact" section makes a good case for international influence and notability. Plus, see h-index above (debatable as a metric as it might be).--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GiveWell[edit]

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

Deleted via WP:G11, then brought to deletion review, where the outcome was to bring to AfD. I am acting in a purely administrative role, and offer no opinion on the outcome. I've left it in with the tempundeleted template; it's easy enough to go look in the history to see earlier versions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TNT, or restart completely on the understanding that the current version is at least 90% inappropriate as promotion based on non-independent sources. To begin with, everything based on a "givewell" source, or on a source including the word "blog" has to go. There are, however, some good sources. Content should be built using the good, independent sources only, with only special limited reference to the company's website. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:TNT is not now and never has been policy. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The topic is clearly notable as it is easy to find substantial source such as Ethics in an Age of Savage Inequalities or Effective Altruism: Where Charity and Rationality Meet. The page has existed since 2008 without all this current drama which seems contrary to WP:POINT. Per WP:ATD, we should address any issues with ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • TNT is not a rule, or policy. It is instead good advice. GiveWell is a notable topic, but since the first version, it has been so terribly written that a fresh start is the best idea. Cut all of the text, choose the good sources, and start again without reference to the current prose. Usually poorly written drafts improve, that used to be true, but this is an example of overtly promotional prose that only got worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify. I do not care if it is deleted and re-created, or if it is reduced to three objective sentences and regrown from there while retaining the history. The key takeaways are that there is too much crap on the page to try to selectively cull promotion and retain a substantial amount of content, but that there definitely should be an article at GiveWell. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: We move the current article to draftspace and restore the version there, create a stub for GiveWell in the mainspace and then those of us to believe that the draft version can be repaired work on it there. If and once the repair work is done to a degree that there is sufficient consensus that the draft is better than the stub, we move it back. In the meantime we have a note at the top of the stub saying that there is a draft version of the article that is being worked upon. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the article. I also merged Open Philanthropy Project here, as it almost completely duplicated this article. What was independently sourced there, I brought over here. I recommend that the nominator withdraw the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me; thanks for the cleanup! VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was a procedural nomination following the DRV outcome, RoySmith can't withdraw the nomination. I do think this warrants a speedy keep though. Thanks for the effort! Regards SoWhy 09:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any basis for that claim that the nominator is not responsible for withdrawing.  It is just more evidence that nominations like this should never have been allowed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jytdog's unproblematic version of the article — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andrew D. makes a persuasive case, and after Jytdog's hard work rewriting, there is no good reason to delete this. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Jytdog's excellent rewrite with multiple independent sources. the wub "?!" 00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to vote keep due to Jytdog's excellent rewrite, but I have a COI as a strong supporter of GiveWell. While I may only comment here, I'd nevertheless encourage others to really look at Jytdog's rewrite closely -- I truly feel that it resolves the issues the older versions of the article had. — Eric Herboso 00:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to 'keep' since the original rationale to delete has evaporated with jytdog's rewrite. Thanks jytdog. Cheers, Pat.Patbol (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable topic. This is a fascinating article. Five years ago, the astro turfing incident at MetaFilter resulted a brigade of Mefites on Wikipedia which left the article almost entirely negative and unusable. Then brigand paid editor Vipul got involved and took the article in the opposite direction becoming overly promotional. Then TNT'd and rebooted. Where to next for GiveWell? -- GreenC 15:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete previous versions and keep the rewrite, if it's the case that none of the earlier material has been used. Except for problems with attribution, this is what I would think best when the contaminating text is bad enough that it shouldn't even be in the history. And I think that TNT is indeed good advice, and ought to apply when the article was directly paid for in the usual sense of parasitic editing rings, in order that the editor editing in defiance of the TOU not get paid for the work--they usually offer a promise that the money will be refunded if the article does not remain at least for a short time--and it set an example that paying for an article is not going to get one. If the organization is notable, the new text can be added later. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll disagree with this. We often have bad text in our articles. Then we fix it and we don't. Unless there is a legal issue here, "delete old versions" is almost always a bad idea. And in this case, it does look like parts were used from the old versions, so, it would create legal issues to do this. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:HEY. Nice work. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close  If there is no one willing to do the work of preparing a deletion nomination, there is no need for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  As per my statement at the DRV, "WP:Criteria for speedy deletion states, 'Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." with a wiki-link to WP:Snowball clause.  WP:Snowball clause states, 'The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start.'  The next sentence in WP:CSD states, 'Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.' "
Note that the nominator is using this nomination to advance his viewpoint that WP:CSD is much broader than those deletions supported by the WP:Snowball clause.  His closing states, "I could make a reasonable case for calling this No Consensus and letting the WP:CSD stand."  Rather than requiring snowball support for WP:CSD deletions, the closing has ruled that this WP:CSD was not "uncontroversial".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The close is promoting the viewpoint that if an aggressive admin uses WP:CSD, the standard for remedy is that "no consensus to overturn" protects the deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as there is prominent and easily noticeable 'on article' disclosure of past contributions to it by paid editors. User:Jytdog's version is still problematic, for instance every time a PDF of the article is generated the authorship of declared paid editor(s) is included in the footnotes. Their contributions are still recorded and forked off (as they have now actually done on their own websites) and are still linkable to on wikipedia. Alternatively, per 'DGG', there should be careful oversight/suppression of all paid/conflicted contributions to exclude all their past content. This is a proforma objection since there are hundreds of similar articles, including several medical and taxation articles extensively edited by this paid team which needs a positive disassociation by the community. The WP:DP under which this AfD is being conducted is also flawed, being limited to content related deletion, and because there is apparently no policy for deleting articles which evolve in breach of WMF's ToU and guidance. Inlinetext (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly notable, and the neutrality issues seem to have been addressed. As a side note, I agree with Hobit that we shouldn't delete the old revisions, both for attribution reasons and as general good practice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of President Trump's policies on bodies of water[edit]

The effect of President Trump's policies on bodies of water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, apparently started as a class assignment and abandoned, seems to be an incomplete outline with sources. It is possible a reasonable article could be written on the topic with a modified title, but this is not it. If anyone wants to claim the draft to continue working on it, I have no objections to its being moved to user or draft space for development (and care should be take to avoid WP:OR). LadyofShalott 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and undeveloped. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment This is a student draft that should have been created in a sandbox. I'd prefer to userfy it, that's OK. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as per Ed. This is clearly a draft that ended up in the wrong namespace.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely. The student is now editing Stream Protection Rule on a similar topic, with almost the same lead sentence, and is unlikely to do anything with this. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned by others, this seems to have been created in the wrong space. It would be OK to userfy if @YungHam: needs it, but it seems unnecessary at this point. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly even candidate for speedy deletion. Porphyro (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic, although, certainly, if he doesn't get impeached soon, an article on the Trump administration policies impact on the environment will be important to have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Elections Advisory Council[edit]

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

This article was originally written as if it were the organisation's own website, detailing the CVs of its members and listing its events. I prodded it. The prod was later removed by the article's creator who rewrote the article to make it more encylopedic. However, I am not convinced of its notability (the only hit in Google News is a press release by the organisation itself, suggesting it fails WP:GNG) so am putting it up for deletion. Due to the original way the article was written and the relative newness of the account, I am also concerned that there may be a WP:COI (especially given the organisation's links to Smartmatic, another article the contributor has also added a significant amount of text to. Number 57 22:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've been working on the Smartmatic article for some time now and have had multiple single-purpose users intervene and attempt to propagate on related articles. I even observed PR workers from the Philippines (where they have multiple contacts) making edits on the Smartmatic article. Since there are not many valuable sources except for the few by SGO/Smartmatic, this doesn't seem like the article meets Wikipedia:Notability.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable in the slightest; literally just 28 total results on Google, and most of them are self-published by the company itself. Mélencron (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trees Cry for Rain[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • IsaacSt (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find anything to show notability. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep: Notability has now been found. SL93 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did a quick search and discovered that this film is actually quite notable per WP:NFILM. Above all, WP:NFO ("screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"): In 2011, this film was screened at the 15th Annual Seattle Jewish Film Festival, 22 years after its release. Additionally, it was screened at multiple other film festivals, aired on TJC-TV, mentioned in books and the Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review, and is listed as a resource for students on the Middle East Center @ Penn. I'll gladly add some of the refs I just found to the article. In the meantime, they can be easily googled. -- IsaacSt (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the article, as promised. Even I was surprised from what I was able to find on this film. -- IsaacSt (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly based on the reliable and verifiable sources about the film identified and added to the article by IsaacSt. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the expanded article, the film seems notable. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. czar 02:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-377c[edit]

Kepler-377c (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NASTRO, not notable. One of 715 new Kepler planets in one particular batch. Nothing else of merit that I can see. I couldn't find any publications of coverage specific to this object. Lithopsian (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about redirecting it to an article about the 715 new Kepler planets? Terrariola (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. It includes a link to Kepler-377c which is a bit incestuous, but actually contains more information than the article including the correct year of discovery. Lithopsian (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, the year of discovery was 2014. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has more information, let's redirect Kepler-377c to List of planets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. SpaceDude777 (talk) March 19, 2017, 7:28 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to "List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft". All of the information is already in that list, and the stub is unlikely to be expanded. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Songxinping[edit]

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

The result was Deleted per CSD:G11 as unambiguous advertising and promotion. – Athaenara ✉ 09:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing notable. It says he published a "thesis" in 2017 but where? All references (they are all identical except for Ref 5), as well as this one in English appear to be self-published. Timmyshin (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where was it published? I already know the answer: online. Timmyshin (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two lines of biography that takes a 90° turn and becomes an opportunity to re-publish the subject's WP:OR on Prostate therapy. Not a notable person. No clear topic (is it the person or the research). Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Tootooyirenw and Renairenxiang are  Confirmed sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanshengsans.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently-fringe practitioner of herbal cancer treatments with no evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable researcher working in fringe science. No sources to pass WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Kirkland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR (all minor roles), and WP:GNG (no reliable sources available) Quasar G t - c 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7. Speedied as John was nominating NeilN talk to me 20:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyLogic[edit]

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

Fails WP:corp, very close to speedy for promo John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Meets WP:NFOOTY, needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bosevski[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable athlete; possibly too soon. Quis separabit? 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yichen[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability whatsoever. Article created by a confirmed sockpuppet abusing a dozen accounts (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao/Archive, who also created the article on zh.wiki). Timmyshin (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The notability claims, especially the quote "the twenty-first century Asia's most mysterious face" that the article says is from "the US media," are almost certainly fiction. The most-used source is "NetEase," and a translated version of that page indicates that Wang Yichen herself wrote it. CityOfSilver 20:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can find some better references (which are likely to be in Chinese and I don't read that language). At the moment the article has no reliable sources and is such a bad translation that even if references exist, WP:TNT might apply. Neiltonks (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Khambhala[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable YouTube personality. Of the six references, four are actually all the same article which briefly mentions this person in a long list of educational YouTube people, one is a staff directory listing, and the other is an Amazon listing for a book they wrote (actually Lambert Academic Publishing publishes academic papers without providing editorial oversight or even proofreading, they pay their "authors" with one free copy of their book and are known to reprint Wikipedia articles as books) . Not very compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: An anon has posted a keep reason on Navin Khambhala's talk page. I tried to get them to post their views here, but they decided to add a more detailed reason as to why it should be kept. I however have no opinion on to whether or not this page should be kept. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 20:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pied Piper (The Pillows album). (Boldly attempt the redirect before coming to AfD.) czar 03:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Animal[edit]

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

Unconvinced of notability. Not enough material here to warrant an article and can't see how it would grow further. Doesn't really seem to have been added to in about 9 years (hence why I can't imagine future growth). Would suggest merging into the relevant album not am not convinced of the notability there either. PriceDL (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Doryon[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial references and in-depth, significant support. Support is primarily single line listings. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL, and WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP This article has previously PASSED both proposed deletion, as well as speedy deletion by administrator per User:Ritchie333. Administrators determined that Lorenzo Doryon PASSED WP:NMODEL, and WP:ENT, and was indeed notable. Doryon does not gain notability from being an actor, but rather as a model and recording artist. Per WP:NMODEL, and WP:ENT, Doryon meets all notability requirements. He has had significant roles as outlined in the article, and covered by major national media outlets also sourced in the article. These have been documented by extremely prestigious media outlets such as the LA Times, for which he is in the main cover photo. Moreover, Doryon also meets the second requirement of having "a large fan base." He currently has over 420,000 engaged followers on instagram. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "People are likely to be notable if they meet ANY of the following standards." Thus, Doryon qualifies on his "large fan base" alone. All references to being an actor have been removed and the info box was changed from an actor to a model info box. The above argument is invalid as Doryon has PASSED WP:NMODEL, and WP:ENT, agreed upon by administrator User:Ritchie333's decline of A7 deletion. Doryon has been determined by the wikipedia guidelines and community to indeed be notable. Additionally, there have been many good faith contributions by the Wikipedia community to improve this article. This article is clearly not a candidate for AfD. It is a well developed article that deserves a place on Wikipedia. It is my recommendation that this AfD is either withdrawn or the article is marked as KEEP. Thanks again to all involved! MusicSource17 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's be clear and accurate the article did not "pass" either a PROD or a CSD. You removed the PROD and the CSD was removed because there was a claim of notability - a mention in the LA Times. An admin did not determined the article subject PASSED WP:NMODEL, and WP:ENT, and or was notable.
As indicated to you previously, the subject does not meet the criteria in WP:NMODEL or WP:ENT. He is WP:MILL model/actor. The coverage you cite are very limited, trivial single line mentions or are from his website or IMDB - there are no in-depth, significant articles. Being on the 1st page of the LA Times is usually included with a major article about the subject, but the picture was not even credited as being the Wikipedia article subject. The article was this single line mention (stage credit) in an article buried in the paper. BTW, there is no cover page for a newspaper.
I am sorry, but the base you mention is hardly "a large fan base." There are internet "stars" with millions of followers that do not warrant an article. The community has not determined his is notability, you have and as previously stated, an admin did not determined the article subject PASSED WP:NMODEL, and WP:ENT, and or was notable. reddogsix (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Agree that administrator User:Ritchie333's decline of WP:A7 speedy deletion clearly indicated that this article passed speedy deletion attempt. This also indicated notability based on WP:NMODEL and WP:ENT. The criteria clearly states that as User:MusicSource17 noted, per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "People are likely to be notable if they meet ANY of the following standards." The subject of this article seems to actually qualify under several of the available criteria, let alone just one criteria standard.
Just an aside, but I actually recognize this kid from hanging from the ceilings every time I walk into my local Target lol. Upon further research he seems to be quite a successful model and stage performer. I also had the chance to listen to some of the tracks on his webpage and they are definitely impressive. Not sure, but with a following larger than the size of a small country, I would definitely say the subject of this article qualifies as having not only a large, but a VERY large fan base/ cult following, a criteria he certainly passes under WP:NMODEL. The subject passes the Wikipedia accepted definition of large which is what me must go on, not the above commenter's opinion on what subject does or does not deserve an article. As such, it is my determination that the article passes notability per our guidelines and must be kept.
Wikipedia grows with new articles and we should all try as a community to expand on and improve articles, rather than try to shut them down and delete them before they get on their feet. I noticed the previous commenter has quite a history of deleting articles prematurely. Upon reviewing the history, this seems to be his third attempt to remove this article, and he has done very little to offer any suggestions to improve the article to the editors, or contribute to the article itself. KEEP Zaczac333 (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Zaczac333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The citations in the article are unreliable, affiliated with the subject, or trivial mentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet the specific notability criteria nor [[WP:|GNG]] the general ones. That the speedy deletion request was declined does not have any bearing on this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 06:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi bonadea! Thank you for contributing to this discussion. I strongly request you reconsider your belief for the following reasons: Per WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." The specific guideline the subject passed for this article under WP:NMODEL is "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Doryon has a engaged fan base of over 420,000 fans on instagram. This most certainly surpasses this requirement, and thus, the subject-specific guidelines. Doryon also passes additional requirements under the subject-specific guidelines, however, the guidelines clearly state that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." I also believe the decline of A7 deletion by an administrator further proves that this subject is notable. For these reasons, I unequivocally believe that this article passes necessary criteria and should remain as a KEEP. I humbly ask that you reconsider. Please feel free to discuss more, and I thank you for your consideration. MusicSource17 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MusicSource17, no, declining an A7 deletion request does not imply that the subject is notable, only that there is a claim of significance, which is a weaker claim than notability. The speedy deletion criteria are narrow and strict, and it is in fact fairly common for administators to decline speedy deletion requests that don't meet those strict requirements with the advice "Take it to AfD" - and in fact that happened here as well, which means that the admin did not make any claim of notability. As for the large fan base or "cult" following, there is no secondary source supporting this. By itself, having many Instagram/Twitter/Facebook followers is not equivalent of "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" unless the number of followers has been discussed in depth in independent sources. The other points of WP:ENT are also not met, and since all sources are primary, with the exception of a couple of trivial mentions, WP:GNG isn't either.
Please do not make more than one bolded "keep" comment, btw - it's a formality, but one that many people like to see kept, and it may cause unnecessary friction when contributors don't stick to that. See this for more information. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi bonadea, thanks for responding so quickly! Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." With his instagram account acting as the primary source, it is very clear that he has over 420,000 fans. This is not an interpretation, but rather a verifiable fact which is very easy to understand without any further specialized knowledge. This is a primary independent source, that clearly shows his large/cult fan base, thus passing WP:ENT. His social following is also discussed on his imdb through a verified biography that mentions his social following is "massive." The facts that you mentioned as being primary, are indeed allowed per WP:PRIMARY, because they are straightforward, descriptive statements based on the primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicSource17 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearian, If your concern is the number of photos of him from that production, I encourage you to look at this link from Getty Images that clearly show Lorenzo as the focal point and one of the stars of the production. [GETTY IMAGES]. Doryon was called "Outstanding" by TheaterMania, and "Impressive" by StageSceneLA, both linked in the article. With regard to being "good" sources, the wikipedia community has in the past recognized Variety Magazine, TheaterMania, StageSceneLA, the LA Times, and Playbill as all quality sources. Additionally, all bios on IMDB are independently verified by the IMDB team, so the bio written there is also a great source that can be used. I very kindly ask that you reconsider your opinion and allow other editors the chance to further develop and improve this article. I would greatly appreciate a change in your stance to KEEP. Thank you!! MusicSource17 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You have not convinced me to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How to change my mind: show that actually he has tens of thousands of fans and that there is significant coverage of that fact. Please show the "claims, evidence, analysis" (CEA). Bearian (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to further explain. The subject of this article does not only have tens of thousands of fans, but rather hundreds of thousands of fans. I encourage you to look HERE, and see his current fan base listed at over 423,000(423k) fans and counting. I further encourage you to scroll down a bit and take a look at the sheer engagement he receives on the photos over a week old (that had had time to accuse engagement), as well as the comments and support he receives from his fans. Per WP:NMODEL, Doryon meets specific notability requirements. Doryon clearly passes the criteria of having "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Doryon's verified biography on IMDB also list his social media following as "massive." Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "People are likely to be notable if they meet ANY of the following standards." Thus, Doryon qualifies on his "large fan base" alone. I am not entirely sure what a CEA is, but if you could link to it or provide it on my talk page, I would love to provide that additional information for you. Thank you again for taking the time to reconsider you stance. I greatly appreciate the opportunity and hope I have provided enough additional information. Again, please let me know if there is anything else I can provide for you. Thanks! MusicSource17 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you may read above, I made the specific, concrete, and observable point of spelling out what CEA stands for, and you failed to read what I wrote, so I shall be sequential. Please provide observable CLAIMS; please provide EVIDENCE of notability beyond mere popularity or fame; please provide ANALYSIS beyond just linking to NMODEL. The biggest problem with both IMdB and Instagram is that the information at those websites can be manipulated by bots, publicity hounds, agents, and other entities that aren't really fans; even if we take their numbers at face value, they only speak to fame, not notability, which is a different concept. So how do we define "large fan base" based on Instagram? Let us look at past discussions for guidance. River Viiperi was deleted last year despite having 183,000 more followers on Instagram than Doryon. Kevin Peake was deleted recently although he has tens of thousands of followers on Instagram. I can't find any male model who we've kept after a recent discussion. A person has to be royalty (or the equivalent), or have done something really significant in real life, not just be famous for being famous to get their own Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, long story short, C/claims: the subject really does not have that big of a fan base (as measured by Instagram followers), E/evidence: there's no evidence he's actually done anything significant that we'd call notable, and A/analysis: we've recently deleted articles of much more famous male models. River's "fan base" is much bigger than Lorenzo's -- and they still erased his article. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. We need reliable sources to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Science Undergraduate Society of McGill University[edit]

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

Student society at a single university, which I can't see as being notable. Was prodded but the prod was removed without a reason by an IP. Number 57 13:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Faculty student societies at other Canadian universities (such as Queen's Engineering Society, The Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia Vancouver, Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia, The Arts & Science Undergraduate Society of Queen's University (ASUS)) have their own articles. So does the Students' Society of McGill University. Not sure why this student society in particular doesn't merit its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.112.43 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are over 5000 student represented by this society at a major Canadian university in a major Canadian city. It frequently interacts with these communities in a way that is notable to many students and residents in the city. There are a multitude of wikipedia articles for towns and counties in the US that have a tenth of that population and those are certainly less notable. There are over 150 articles about cities in Florida alone that have less population than this society has constituents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.12.192 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're comparing apples and oranges. Take a look at WP:CLUB and WP:ORG to get a better sense of specific notability requirements.Glendoremus (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into McGill University - fails to meet basic notability guidelines. Very few references are independent of the organization (or the university) and those few are local sources that mention the club in passing.Glendoremus (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another non-notable student society. Nothing in Google News, nothing substantial on Google Books. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A student society can be notable enough for a Wikipedia article if it can be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:ORGDEPTH; it does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just on the number of students that it happens to represent. And student societies are not populated places, either, so the fact that a town in Florida might have a smaller population than this organization's number of members is irrelevant to anything. Also, the creator ("Susmcgill") has an obvious conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the references there are three reliable sources (not McGill affiliated, or self-published), articles from the Prince Albert Herald, the Montreal Gazette, and the Canadian Jewish News. None of these articles mention the science undergraduate society by name. There is nothing here to support a claim of notability. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eugenics. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics society[edit]

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

This article is about all eugenics organizations. While the eugenics movement and many individual eugenics organizations are notable, the general subject of eugenics organizations is not notable. The category, Category:Eugenics organizations, is the correct way to catalog eugenics organizations. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge / incorporate into Eugenics. The title is simply a dictionary definition: a eugenics society is simply a society that promotes eugenics, end of article. All other content should either be expanded upon at respective society articles, or placed in context at Eugenics. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge per Animalparty, assuming there is anything of value to save.Glendoremus (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Eugenics. Merge any information as needed into that article. Not enough can be added to this article to make it stand on its own. South Nashua (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. This is for a generic society, not a quantifiable group. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntal Chakraborty[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Winged Blades Godric 11:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 11:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Crüxshadows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails the notability for music criteria. - TheMagnificentist 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Crüxshadows. All the sources are about the subjects involvement with the notable band The Crüxshadows. Searching found nothing helpful. Per WP:MUSICBIO this should be a redirect because the Rogue lacks coverage for activity independent of the band. Gab4gab (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)[edit]

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this subject should warrant its own article. Most of the content in the article is already mentioned in the main article. Was supposed to be a redirect but then DBZFan30 decided to create the page then edit war over it when I reverted back to a redirect, hence why I've now have no other option (apart from ANI) but to list this here Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the lyrics within the song have a long history of being used for comedic effect when stipulating it as normal everyday language. Therefore it is notable outside and beyond the framework of this single. 92.13.139.173 (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW, moving the article to the song's correct title (Yo Home to Bel Air (song)) because this song meets both the GNG and the specific criteria for singles, peaking at number 4 in the national Singles chart in the Netherlands here. There's also evidence of sustained coverage - a performance on national TV of this song as recently as 2012 on the BBC here and in 2013 here, for example. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Not enough independent coverage, while anything worth saving can be merged to the article about the series when talking about the theme song. Charting, in and of itself, does not make a song automatically notable. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect The coverage of this song worth mentioning is entirely linked to Smith & the The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Better to cover it there in context. Gab4gab (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A number of sources have been added. Any subsequent comments or !votes should take this into account. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As argued above there seems to be enough evidence of notability and stories like this [4] would seem to further support this.Dunarc (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the song has been "covered" by various artists, it does not warrant the article a "free pass". This can be merged into the main Fresh Prince of Bel-Air article. Also, WP:NSONGS states that "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is the case here, and why I'm saying it needs to be merged. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be objective - take a step back, read through the article. There is substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources so the WP:GNG is met (with plenty of potential for more material from all these sources to be added), combined with evidence that the article meets WP:NSINGLE (because it was released as a single, it's not just a theme song). That's enough for the retention of an article. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was undecided, maybe slightly leaning keep prior to the work which has been done expanding the article. Now, it seems pretty clear to me that it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 23:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No question, given the additions made over the last day or so. I'd say that much of the content currently under The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air#Development belongs in the song article also, since it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the development of the show at all. JG66 (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit of a stickler for sourcing, and the references to the song in that section don't have any (although I remember reading the same information somewhere else so I don't doubt its accuracy). I'll be adding bits from there when I can locate sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back - Great song however I personally believe it's still not notable here, IMHO it's better off being a redirect with the content merged in to the main Prince of Bel Air article. –Davey2010Talk 03:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep abundance of sources in the article clearly show standalone support, no call to merge or redirect is warranted. ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Source show that the song is notable on its own, and deserves more coverage than we should have in its own section on the proposed merge target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an iconic song; definitely notable --Temp87 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L2B[edit]

L2B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed PROD - Non-notable individual. The citations provide no indication that the article meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as they link either to mere announcements of song releases, are a blog post, or are unrelated or very distantly related news articles. Mifter (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a fog of references that confirm this is a musician who has released some material. The only significant coverage is interview which does little to help notability. Searching found nothing helpful. No elements of WP:MUSICBIO met. Same for WP:ANYBIO.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rather close to no consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 22:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxstoke air crash[edit]

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

WP:GNGNot notable, as a military aircraft which crash on a regular basis as an operational hazard, the incident is not notable unless there is a reason other than the crash itself. Such as, collision with a civilian aircraft, civilian casualties on the ground, caused the introduction of rules, regulations or law Petebutt (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is to be deleted, consider migrating content to Maxstoke. Classicwiki (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea!--Petebutt (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Petebutt (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect this name given that now the incident is a part of the Maxstoke article (good solution, guys), this one above should be deleted as not notable as a stand alone article and as it is now, it is a redundant content fork. Kierzek (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep Article says that it was the deadliest RAF crash until then. Enough for notability? --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: G'day, given that the information is now included in the Maxstoke article, I think redirecting would be a better solution than deletion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable as it was the deadliest RAF aircrash at the time. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inclusion with Maxstoke article not sufficient as that page is about the small hamlet and should have no more than a couple sentences about the place crash. Nominated article sufficiently notable. --NoGhost (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the RAF's deadliest accident to date makes it notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/merge. Deadliest in 1918 didn't require much. And being deadliest is not a clear notability criteria. What would make it notable would be seeing more news coverage. Can someone dig out more sources? The current coverage does not suggest to me it is or was notable. PS. However, I will also point out that there may be precedence for treating ANY air crash with fatalities as notable (at least, that's what we do for 21st century accidents - but also because they are always covered on the Internet by numerous sources), but this would require a separate discussion and establishing consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Google the pilot and there are a few hits (considering we're talking about 1918). The incident in mentioned in Arthur Keen (RAF officer) so I've linked it. see [5] "at the time was the worst aircraft disaster in RAF history." (a blog, I know, but...). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This was during WWI, when flying deaths due to enemy action were common. The article is I think also wrong in referring to RAF, which I thought was only established after WWI. If I am wrong in that, it was only the deadliest because the RAF was so new. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: The RAF was established on 1 April 1918, so article is correct to refer to the RAF. This crash was not due to e/a. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected. However the alleged notability seems to be that it was the most serious incident in four months, which still does not give me confidence in its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you'll find it was the deadliest British military aviation accident to date, not just the RAF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Deadliest RAF aviation accident at the time seems like a notable incident, but the sourcing isn't that great. Having the infobox, which is useful, in the proposed target article also doesn't seem like the best option. Would be okay redirecting as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Reading the discussion carefully, I find no consensus in this discussion. I can't see any major pointers to keep the article, but still more editors !voteed keep than delete. This could be reopened. (non-admin closure) J947 06:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Password[edit]

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

no evidence of notability given, as with some of the other articles in the category which I will nominate separately because it is possible that there may be evidence for a few of them , DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

those 3 reviews are all written for the same publication by the same person. I agree that they make up together one suitable reference. We need evidence that more than one person thinks the product important. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
addictivetips.com is a low quality source - it describes itself as a blog, has no clear editorial policy or oversight, and as such may host advertorial content. It is not sufficient to clearly establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Encantadia. Redirecting all to Encantadia, redirects are cheap. WP:RFD is thataway. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Encantadian War[edit]

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

This has been redirected back to the series several times, and each time gets reconstituted. No evidence of standalone notability. A redirect is warranted, perhaps, but no point in redirecting again, without consensus. Onel5969 TT me 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages based upon the same rationale:

Lirean war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
War of the four Gems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Encantadia per nominator. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, and protect, since the reversions are evidently a problem. Reyk YO! 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all, per others. This did not need to be relisted again today, as there has been no other calls to keep or to oppose the redirect opinions given thus far. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Great Encantadian War to Encantadia, Weak delete Lirean war, and Delete War of the four Gems - All three terms are not notable outside of the Encantadia series, and while the first term is a plausible search term and thus is a viable redirect, I'm not convinced that the other two are. I don't really see "Lirean war" used except for mirrors of a now-deleted Wikipedia(?) article, while "War of the four Gems" has improper capitalization and thus probably isn't a viable search term or redirect. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Agree with nom/Narutolovehinata5.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:SOFTDELETE applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mascara Story[edit]

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

Reason Dom oldanor (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nowhere notable enuff to have a wikipedia page - the band only lasted for a year and did nothing of importance

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete': Lack of sources online. Failed to establish notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justice for women, Bangladesh - JFWBD[edit]

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

Not notable organization according to WP:ORG Kayser Ahmad (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an organization based on Facebook. So it might be useful to examine the Facebook pages in more detail. There may well be lots more information in Urdu for those able to check. It looks like an effective women's rights organization.--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - By all means, but I have a tendency to stay away from Facebook as a WP:RS as it is a WP:SELFSOURCE, but it might point a way to some other areas that could be used. - Pmedema (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't verify the content of the article because there are no sources. There is a facebook page link. However this is for a closed-group. Which leave me with two articles found in searching. [7] and [8] Not enough notability for WP:ORG and content of articles needs to be verifiable. Gab4gab (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The organization is barely two years old. There's almost no English-language coverage. The Dhaka Tribune article that Gab4gab linked describes one action by the group. Its founder is on a list of 15 winners of "Inspiring Women Award 2017", implying that the organization is attracting some measure of recognition.[9][10]
Searching for "জাস্টিস ফর উইমেন" returns wider and deeper coverage. The Ittefaq article that Gab4gab linked is a good start. Two other reliable sources are [11] and [12], but I would prefer that these and other Bengali-language search results be evaluated by editors fully fluent in the language. Are they of sufficiently significant detail to satisfy WP:GNG? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is just social media based, no filed work. And see bn.Wikipedia delete this article for not notable org. আদরিনি আক্তার (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curvve Recordings[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business. Business lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a mix of listings and pages about others which sometime make a minor mentions. Created by a mix of accounts directly connected to the business and by a now blocked spammer. Complete with a faked quote. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, they produce songs that reach the #1 position on Billboard and Beatport charts,[13][14] and work with award winning singers.[15] So I don't know how you would want to treat this. Lourdes 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America1000 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Troia[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable individual. Business lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has two parts. 1. Hacker. Troia occasionly quoted in local media on IT security. That does not make someone notable. Such commenting does not come with any depth of coverage about him. 2. Musician. Not notable. Released lack reviews, national charting, sales or awards. Created by a mix of accounts directly connected to the business and by a now blocked spammer. Complete with a faked quote and failed verification. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has appeared in Billboard national dance charts multiple times.[16][17] Qualifies on NMUSIC. Lourdes 08:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whilst he seems to meet criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO, this is one of those situations where I believe the phrase ...may be notable... at the top of the policy is relevant. He does not appear to meet any of the other criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, certainly does not meet WP:GNG, and has only 56 results on a Google search; none of which proves notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree his collaboration with another artist that resulted in a few lower-rung appearances on a Billboards dance chart is not enough to compensate for the otherwise weakness of notability. The article seems promotional, and the fact that a fake quote was outted and that the article's creation was the work of a since-blocked spammer associated with the subject's business (as pointed out by the nominator) reveals a bad-faith abuse of wikipedia. ShelbyMarion (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AfDs for this article:


The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America1000 00:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Clerc[edit]

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

Not notable student film maker. Outside the indiscrimitate local press he lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG holds that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Significant coverage is defined as when the sources address the subject directly and in detail and are not a trivial mention. This is the case for all of the news articles used in the article. You describe the press as "indiscriminate" and local; however, while the two articles from the Citizen are examples of local press, the articles from the Daily Globe, Marshall Independent, and KEYC are all large regional publications/media outlets. While Clerc is based within the circulation area of both the Citizen and the Daily Globe, neither of the other two publications circulate there. duffbeerforme, could you elaborate on which aspect of WP:GNG you feel this article does not meet? Ryan Vesey 03:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, prior to creating the article, I ran this information by Go Phightins! to get a second opinion regarding the subject's notability. If he is around, perhaps he could elaborate as to why he also felt the subject met the notability guidelines. Ryan Vesey 03:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All from nearby down in the SW of Minnesota. Marshall Independent? Marshall, Minnesota, population 13-14,000. Papers circulation ~5,000. Large publication? I live in a larger town and see how indiscriminate our local paper is, not just the town but the region. Reading their article and that of the local affiliate KEYC read as very local puff, Young Windom this, Windom that, checkout what this local student is doing. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 06:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Franklin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation since it was just a copy-and-paste from here but the CSD template was removed by the page's creator. The only real source is that page, which doesn't do a ton to establish notability and is obviously not impartial. CityOfSilver 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak keep. A lot of this is still too promotional and in several instances, obscure prose is used with no explanation for non-expert readers. (To take two of many examples, the first two sentences of the second lede paragraph are inside baseball and the term "Mystery Machine" is used without any indication of what its origin is.) The entire article still carries a résumé-ish, pamphlet tone but the sourcing and text has been improved to the point that it's no longer a top-to-bottom violation of the promo and notability policies. CityOfSilver 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Hopefully fixed one of the inside-baseball parts. Regarding the tone: Given the AFD in progress I just wanted to get notability established, which results in the rather bullet-itemy flow. Once there's more time (hopefully), I'll take a crack at fleshing it further out into a proper treatment. Any feedback along the way would be most appreciated, as I hope to get more into content work. Thanks CoS! CrowCaw 20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Crow: Changing again to keep. I tried to get across that you cleared up the notability and sourcing problems and re-reading my comment, I don't know if I was a little bit harsh. My concerns with the writing are a distraction and on second thought, they're not relevant to a deletion discussion. The nom's primary concern was WP:BIO and at this point, I don't even see any way to debate whether that applies any more. CityOfSilver 02:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I've re-written this article. Pinging all participants to evaluate and comment based on new state: @JMHamo and CityOfSilver: CrowCaw 20:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the record, with the acknowledgement that I'm not impartial here. CrowCaw 14:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the recent changes render the article compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Kurykh's relist comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Proxima[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The article seems to be an attempt to create buzz for a term that was coined in a 2016 video. The definition given in the lede is unsourced. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either redirect to Earth analog or delete. "Earth Proxima" is not a term in widespread use, but "Earth analog" is. My Google searches for "Earth Proxima" turned up only a few hits, and as the nominator points out, it is essentially an arbitrary buzzword promoted by one documentary. Earth analog already does a good job of covering the material that this article seeks to convey, and I see no reason to duplicate that material by keeping this article. Astro4686 (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for changed vote. Although I slightly favor a redirect, I would also support deletion for the reasons stated by the nominator. Astro4686 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As nominator, I feel this article is simply attempting to leverage Wikipedia as a promotion vehicle. I don't think we should even bother with a redirect, the only article pointing to Earth Proxima (List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates) does so in the context of mentioning the video. Other than that, it's an orphan. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- term not in widespread usage. Would also support a redirect, in that order of preference. Porphyro (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalle Oskari Mattila[edit]

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

Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, there are not significant sources to establish WP:GNG. There is nothing in HIghBeam, seven articles in news, and seven in the google custom search, which overlaps the news sources. –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an overly promotional page on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Created by a sock puppet of blocked user, Vanjagenije (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sossick[edit]

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

not sure if this meets WP:GNG as it lacks in-depth information about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Created by a sock puppet of blocked user, Vanjagenije (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iyle[edit]

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

topic fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Search results bring up nothing substantial about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America1000 00:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan dawkins[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. The only independent source listed in the article (from humormillmag.com) doesn't actually mention him by name. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In order to get any type of input from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Close to no consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines and weapons of mass destruction[edit]

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

This does not contain any information about actual WMD planning and R&D in the Philippines. Instead the article states that the United States military were rumoured to hide nuclear warheads in the country during the Cold War era. That isn't justification for creating this article. There is also mention about the Bataan nuclear power plant, and that the Philippines 'nuclear program' started in 1958 - Both are linked to peaceful uses of nuclear technology and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It also contains a rumour which suggests the New People's Army previously had biological weapons, and with no evidence presented.

This should be deleted. Philippines does not have a history of WMD development whatsoever. Agila81 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with United States and weapons of mass destruction - If the only relevant information is how the United States stored WMDs there to defend against the USSR, there's no reason we shouldn't transcribe the information to the relevant US-WMD article. The Philippines has never had a WMD program and the information about atomic energy plants is irrelevant as they are not WMDs. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after adding a reference to the cited State Department memo to United States and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think a merge with history is needed.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a page on an non existing topic & POV title to boot. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a POV title. There's a whole series of "xxxx and weapons of mass destruction" articles that can be found in Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not grounds to keep an article, consistency is a good enough reason to follow an implicit naming convention. There is the matter of the US storage of nuclear weapons in the Philippines. Arguably this should be mentioned in Nuclear weapons and the United States (not United States and weapons of mass destruction) but it isn't, and nor is there mention in that article (or its WMD parent) of US storage of nuclear weapons in other countries. I did find them mentioned in the WMD articles on Germany and South Korea; curiously, three of the most important storage countries are conspicuously missing WMD articles. Secondly, This is not a non-existent topic. Countries do not need to have WMD programs to have policies on WMDs! Luxembourg has one! The Philippines has signed separate treaties on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. There is a story behind each of these, there are books on the subject, and I am certain that materiel exists to write an article, so the topic passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked article on Sweden states: "During the late 1940s and 1950s, Sweden had programs for both nuclear and chemical weapons. During the first decades of the Cold War, a nuclear weapons program was active." That was not the case for the Philippines. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hawkeye7 WMD proliferation has more dimensions than counting wmds. Non Proliferation policy making has evolved over time to address state actors and non-state actors such as terrorist groups. You may therefore having WMD programs being developed by rogue groups within a country with no wmds. See United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1540 The country report of Philippines is here:[18]. Afernand74 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hawkeye7. Aside from the storage of US nuclear weapons in the Philippines, the article can cover other aspects of Filipino diplomatic actions in relation to WMDs (eg, their position in various international negotiations and the country's status in ratifying international agreements). Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We know that the Philippines hasn't developed any such weapons (or at least, that's what THEY want you to think), but this article can still be a useful discussion of the government's attitude to such weapons; participation in anti-proliferation activites, relevant treaties, storage of weapons on Philippine soil, and allegations of use by rebel groups. There's plenty to talk about in such an article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Estadio La Peineta. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Metropolitano[edit]

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

Wanda Metropolitano is not a new stadium. It's the announced name for Estadio La Peineta. Madrid municipality has agreed to sell the statium to Atlético de Madrid and the football club announced some months ago that Wanda Metropolitano will be the name of the stadium once it actually purchases the stadium. Therefore, there's only one stadium, currently named "La Peineta" (popular name in fact), whose name has been stated to change once Atlético de Madrid takes the ownership of the stadium. Therefore, there's no need to have two different articles. Name must be Estadio La Peineta until it actually changes to Wanda Metropolitano, but it hasn't happened yet. Discasto (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. It's just a (future) name change. --Discasto (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilla Osman[edit]

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

Article appears to fail notability criteria for WP:BLPs. In essence, fails WP:1EVENT. References cited are mostly blogs and unreliable tabloids (Note: The Daily Mirror can be dubious as a reliable source for Wikipedia ) -- and almost all references are for a single event: when two people met one day and took a selfie together. Is that enough for a biography? — CactusWriter (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion as un-notable. However your link seems to show that the daily *mail* was considered unsuitable for wikipedia rather than the mirror! Jaxyking (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out, Jaxyking. I've changed the link to the correct discussion. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She seems to be more of a novelty than a notable individual. There are a few decent sources cited, but I don't think that proves notability. Imalawyer (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that reference add that would actually satisfy a notability criterion? Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I would prefer a Wikipedia that is all Sylvia Plath, James Joyce and Mies Van der Rohe. However it so happens that some indivduals from the more common forms of culture are indeed notable by our standards. This person has been covered in depth by good sources (e.g. Toronto Star, Elle, Closer in France, People, Cosmopolitan, MTV). Several of these sources talk about the phenomena of being a doppelganger and the Star article actually explicitly responds to the argument that this is a no-talent person. Like it or not, the sources are wide and far for this person, and she is a living thing, not a one-time event.198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Yoon Zeng Khai[edit]

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

A 20 year-old student whose notability claim is he has won several Malaysian awards (many, if not all, for youths and children). None of these awards appears notable. References are either not in-depth (list of winners) or self-published (from jaydenyoon.com). PS: his primary school teammate is also on AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Ang Lu Hiong. Timmyshin (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches and sources show that he is non-notable just like his teammate. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overly promotional article on a youth who may someday be notable, but has not yet made it there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The awards he had won are non-notable because they were in Malaysia and for youths per nom. It seems too soon to create this biography article. NgYShung huh? 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspars Ikstens[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he has been called-up to the Latvian national team. This is neither new, his first call-up being in 2010, nor sufficient for notability, since he has yet to actually play a match. As such the underlying notability concerns remain unchanged. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, but do not salt, since whenever he could be played in an international match as long as he keeps getting called up. It was created in February 2010 and deleted via PROD, recreated March 2013 and deleted that April, so a recreation and deletion in March 2017, four years later, does not seem like it's frequently recreated at all. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete doesn't seem that the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Do not SALT though as article might possible meet these guidelines in the future, per Patar knight's comment. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynton Goss[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer who has never played higher than the seventh level of English football, clearly failing WP:NFOOTY. Prod removed by article's creator without a rationale. Number 57 13:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Samways[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Limited coverage. No notable publications or major awards LibStar (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable author. The books aren't even in print any more, and the full texts are available on the author's web site, which doesn't really speak to their value. --Calton | Talk 13:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable author of non-notable books. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of the links to sources in the article are dead. Looking around I was able to find a few places where Samways' work is briefly mentioned, but nothing in depth on her from an independent and reliable source. Note that this doesn't mean that her work does not have value, merely that we don't have enough to go on here to write a biography that meets our standards when writing about living persons. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Darshan[edit]

1969 Darshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Outside of orgs publications it lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However this could be fixed as its relevant to [Meher Baba] who is very notable. It has refs. Try looking at the Offline sources too. Many exist. I have access to some books at a local library. Also a few are online. Heres a guy you like in Brabazon D, Ross keating. These others have books too Bill Le Page, Charles Haynes, Kity Davy. Lord Meher online -Kalchuri SaintAviator lets talk 22:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real sources. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Baba[edit]

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

Not notable. Two different topics squeezed onto one page, neither are notable. The saying: dicdef with no coverage outside of the groups publications. The ep: WP:NALBUM, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, lacks charting, reviews. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neither topic would work as a standalone article, and this hybrid doesn't either. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SaintAviator lets talk 22:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worthy of an article. No real refs. Not notable. Not in the Urban Dictionary. Nowhere. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba's flag[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage outside of the groups own publications. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's someone's personal flag, with no indication why any other than him (or his followers) have noticed it or would even have any interest in it. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Win Coates[edit]

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

Very Non notable. Speedy A7 decline cause he was mentioned in a book but that was "published" by Lulu, a self publishing service. Notability is not inherited from the man he followed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He's a photographer who followed his guru around and took the guru's picture. A lot. And...? --Calton | Talk 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 Conference All-Time football team[edit]

Big 12 Conference All-Time football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:LISTN. This is just one of many such "all-time" lists that various organizations come up with every few years. The Big-12 to that point had been around for all of 15 years; thus due to the thin list of players to choose from, some of them wouldn't even pass GNG. Additionally, a google search is turning up virtually no coverage of this particular all-time team. Lizard (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is one of many notable such lists. passess WP:GNG easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG as Paulmcdonald said, plus it is well sourced. It can also be added to if another all-time is ever created which I imagine the Big 12 will probably for their 25th anniversary in 2021 with a section for the original team, then the 25th anniversary team.--Rockchalk717 05:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America1000 00:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Della Vega[edit]

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

Previously deleted (in 2006). Both creations are by editors with no other contributions. There are three sources cited. The first is 404 and in the "community" pages of Guinness, so is not a RS or verified record. I cannot find an authoritative source for the claim that he ever held this record, and it would not in itself prove notability in the absence of non-trivial independent sources about the subject. The second source is a random website, not a reliable source. The third is a form that makes amps, and the page is 404. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shail Kaushal[edit]

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

A contested prod. A local board member who fails WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. Most sources are election results, facebook or council articles. Mattlore (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nom. Strongly suspect a COI as creator has no other edits apart from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per DerbyCounty. The only thing I could find that may help towards WP:GNG is [19], but I don't believe it's enough to satisfy the criteria. Also, I'm not an expert, but how confident are we regarding the license of File:Shail official pic.jpg? -- Shudde talk 08:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have updated the article, added more independent links e.g. from NZ Herald. But do remember that official results as previous user mentioned can only be verified from the Auckland Council links they are thus included, moreover Facebook links were used when other users on Wikipedia indicated they wanted more evidence on the member's personal information, thus only 4/25 links relates to Shail Kaushal's public Facebook, which I was able to locate. Rest are articles by the media, not press releases - check article authors. Please keep, and let me know if more edits are needed. Cheers -- Bondj
  • Also the page meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. As it currently stands based on the references used, not in terms of how many in Google search. 6/29 Kaushal has been referred to or interviewed in The NZ Herald, the most reputable paper in NZ. 2/29 times he has been referred to or interviewed by Radio New Zealand, the most reputable radio station in NZ. 4/29 times he has been referred to or interviewed by Fairfax media (Stuff/Central Leader) which is an Central Auckland regional paper, not just once as Shudde notes. 5/29 times he has been referred or interviewed by Ethnic Media such as Indian Weekender, the largest Indian paper in NZ. 6/29 times he has been referred to in official Govt documentation, including Central Government which Kaushal has no role over (e.g. Youth Parliament Official Hansard or Office of Ethnic Affairs). Only 4/29 times I have used Kaushal's Facebook for personal (but public) information. 1 source has utilised from City Vision (his political party), and 1 source utilised from his University. -- Bondj
He does NOT meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. He is a local official and "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of citations fail WP:SIGCOV, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DerbyCountyinNZ He has significant coverage on NZ Herald, Radio New Zealand, Fairfax media, Indian Weekender, Indian NZherald, NZ Central Government, Auckland Council amongst the various others. They are written by independent and credible authors appearing in credible and highly regarded mediums. Not only on his local government - candidature or election, but also on leading the multilateral delegation from NZ, Aus, South Korea to Taipei, being amongst 10 Aucklanders to be trained as future leaders by NZ Government departments, and Youth MP.

You are saying you want sources independent of the subject, the subject here is Shail Kaushal. Any article excluding him would be irrelevant for citation, be realistic, and can be anything on the internet. These article are not solely based on him for example Herald article on City Vision where Shail Kaushal was singled out by Phil Goff - the article was focussed on City Vision's campaign launch? Aggravated Robbery in Mt Roskill where his interview/comments were included - the article was about aggravated robbery? Clamping issue where he was interviewed, as was Phil Goff, and AA people in the Herald - the focus was the clamping issue? 2 articles on RNZ focus on diversity - Shail Kaushal was interviewed amongst others - the focus was diversity?

Anything else to suggest otherwise could be political bias mate. Happy to give you more examples Bondj (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I prodded the article a week ago and since then, it's been expanded quite a bit, so I've gone through every single reference that could constitute a reliable source and provides significant coverage. Important in this assessment is where to place the Indian Weekender, but looking at their website, you certainly don't get the impression that it would pass the reliable source threshold (in fact, you get the impression that it misses that by a landmile). That leaves me with two sources only: this Central Leader, and maybe this New Zealand Herald article where he gets extensively quoted. That's not quite enough to meet general notability. I suggest this article is a case of too soon, and the subject is likely to get there eventually. But he's not quite there yet. So we should delete for now, and if the general notability situation changes, the article can easily be restored by an admin. Schwede66 04:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede you are missing Radio New Zealand Articles, and other 5 NZ Herald articles, review them and you'll see my point. Indian weekender is the biggest Indian paper in NZ, they were the first to break number of stories such as the Aggravated Robbery in Mt Roskill, and number of others. They do sponsor a lot of awards, events and celebrity visits - shows the likes of Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan to NZ who are like the Tom Cruises of Bollywood. Simply to dismiss them would based on the look would be bit Eurocentric.

Also check the rest of Stuff articles please, Stuff is owned by Fairfax media, and Central Leader is also owned by them.

He is directly quoted in at least 4 of the cited NZ Herald Articles, twice in Radio New Zealand, very minimum of twice in Central Leader - Stuff (Fairfax), the rest in Ethnic Auckland Media.

Bondj (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondj: The problem is that being quoted in an article doesn't count as significant coverage by itself. I found a number of articles where he is quoted, or mentioned in passing, but this just counts as routine coverage rather than "significant" coverage. Our general notability guidelines say "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So being quoted in a number of articles is not in itself enough. We need the coverage to be significant and detailed. I only found one source that could maybe meet this threshold, and that's not enough to meet our general notability guidelines. -- Shudde talk 11:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After a thorough review of the sources available from my own searches, this is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject of this article (who I suspect CREATED the article) does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the coverage found does not meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Please note that requirement cannot be cherry-picked. Sources (plural) should be both reliable and independent, and contain coverage that is significant - all at the same time. I'd also like to ask the article creator to not post an extended reply to every single comment here.

[User:Shudde|Shudde]] Do as you will, I have given enough justification to back my evidence. Kaushal has been subject of number of articles you have chosen to ignore. I.e. Indian Weekender, which is known published Auckland paper online and print.

Exemplo347 you are just a conspiracy theorist making wild assumptions, my user name suits you more. Being productive won't harm you. Bondj (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Bondj:, you uploaded a photo from a Facebook account and said it's your own work. That's pretty straightforward. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not an expert on New Zealand politics, but from what I can tell the subject's position appears to be equivalent to what I would know as a borough council rather than the actual citywide government — but even in the rare class of cities that are large enough to NPOL their main city councillors (which I'll grant that Auckland is), the borough councillors still don't get an automatic inclusion freebie (even London can only NPOL the members of the main London Assembly, and not every borough councillor in Hackney or Barking or Croydon.) The coverage here is not substantive enough, however, to pass WP:GNG in lieu — Bondj really needs to learn about the difference between significant coverage that's substantively about the subject vs. coverage which just namechecks the subject's existence in the process of being about something or someone else. The coverage here is mostly of the latter type, but what we need to deem Kaushal notable enough for an article is far more of the former than has been shown here: it takes more than just one piece of substantive coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not yet enough, per nom and Bearcat, though deletion is with no prejudice against recreating the article if and when Kaushal gains national office or rises further in the Auckland city structure. I also have suspicions of possible COI by the article's main editor (and a tantrum-like blanking of the page due to "bullying" won't win you friends!) Grutness...wha? 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a general guideline politicians are only notable at a minimum national level. Some politicians who have also been councilors for the Auckland Council are also considered notable, due to the large population (1/3 of New Zealand's population) the jurisdiction covers. Other city/district councilors and Auckland local board members generally are not, in this case the BLP doesn't meet the necessary criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slight amendment to that - New Zealand city/regional/district mayors are usually considered notable too. Not that that makes any difference in this case. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ox (energy drink)[edit]

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

Notability not established. Considering the fact that this article has had a "uncited" tag since 2009, coupled with it's been discontinued, I'm surprised this article has been around for as long as it has. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 08:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Given that notability is not temporary, the fact that this energy drink was long ago discontinued is not itself determinative. But the lack of significant coverage is what causes the subject to fail notability guidelines. I tried looking for it through the various gSources, but found nothing other than a few passing mentions under the gBooks search. And those were not enough. Geoff | Who, me? 22:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K Himaanshu Shuklaa[edit]

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

All the references are passing mentions without any in-depth coverage. Also, fails to meet WP:BLP1E. Page creator objected to the PROD so I am nominating for AFD for discussion to reach a consensus about the notability of this person. Malunrenta (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have come across many articles here on Publicists. However, i am trying to improve the article more with reliable sources. K Himaanshu Shuklaa is a famous publicist in Bollywood. (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can only find fleeting mentions of his actions. Needs substantial coverage, from reliable, Independent sources, not based on press releases or anything issued by him, his company, friends or clients.
    The current refs are:- 1) showed his client a photo, 2) organized a photoshoot, 3) issued a tweet, 4) tweeted a link to his blog - the sort of non-noteworthy things publicists do every day. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koonamoochi makaam[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable references endorsing this article. Not placing CSD because would like to give opportunity for non-english language references. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - based on newly uploaded material on youtube and wordpress, my guess is this is a real place. The youtube video gives a bit of information in, I think, Malayalam at about 10 seconds, but not much. At this point, though, I'm not convinced that an article on it can be reliably sourced or that much can be said about it without doing original research. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless someone wishes to take this on and turn it into something, Delete, for WP:TNT and utter lack of competence, if nothing else. Feel free to ping me if someone comes along and rescues this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mkextunpack[edit]

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

I found no reliable significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found no reliable significant coverage either. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts and incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA. Dialectric (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bradstreet House[edit]

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

Article doesn't indicate GNG and a Google News search reaffirms that. J947 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is also given passing mention on page 89 of this book, but I don't find much beyond that. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more nearly identical references can be found searching, "pearl and mechanic" marblehead. Still, I can't really bring myself to !vote either way. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but I'd be happy to reconsider if anyone can show this is a registered monument/landmark. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places ( RHP), not separately but as a contributing building in Marblehead Historic District. Unfortunately the NRHP registration document is not available online for MHD (at least not at normal expected location in the National Park Service's "Focus" system), but the document would be available by request to the National Park Service. It is quite reasonable to expect some detailed information about the Simon Bradstreet House to be included in the document. Based on the current article's info including its photo, it looks to me like this house would be individually notable for listing on the NRHP for its architecture and historic character if it were not included in the historic district. There is also a local "Old and Historic Districts Commission" which would list it and have documents about it. A 2015 news article about the district is here which describes the character of the district and how oddly houses are placed (houses built before roads were, and odd placement of Simon Bradstreet house is suggested by the photo in the article). There will also be offline documents/information available at local history museum Marblehead Museum (www.marbleheadmuseum.org) and/or public library, if someone would make a trip to Marblehead or contact local librarians/historians there.
I have seen Marblehead from the air, and I know Marblehead is a beautiful, well-preserved very historic New England town, and in my opinion it is a cut above other historic districts listed on the NRHP elsewhere. --doncram 17:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further: Besides for its architecture and age, the house will be notable for its association with the preacher Simon Bradstreet, an exceptional person. See this biographical sketch which covers his money woes and his receiving the minister gig in Marblehead and a 140 pound grant which he used to build this house. These facts are already covered in article briefly, by use of offline sources which may be extensive, it is hard to say without seeing them. For U.S. NRHP places, the combination of quite old age (for the U.S.) plus architecture/preservation exemplifying the historic era plus known detailed association with a notable historic person adds up to high significance. I'll stop here, without Googling further on the historic district or the house. --doncram 17:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. User:J947, please don't make AFD nominations about historic places based on your lack of findings in a Google News search! It would not be expected to be in current news. And for a place mentioned to be in a historic district, the historic district should be researched before AFD, too. (So try also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.) --doncram 17:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, Doncram. The National Register of Historic Places nomination form for Marblehead can be found here if you click the "NR" button after "Inventory Number:". The Bradstreet house is mentioned in the application, and it is also called the "Bradstreet-Brown House". Smmurphy(Talk) 17:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Smmurphy, thanks! The NRHP historic district document doesn't have a lot of detail on it, I think because this historic district is quite huge (>900 contributing buildings to list), but it does mention it saliently, naming it among 3 examples of "more substantial" Georgian period buildings having "five-bay, two-story structures which feature dormers, a pedimented entry, and a gambrel roof." I added a bit of that to the article.
  • Note, no way should this have ever headed for outright deletion, because merger/redirect to the historic district would always have been a better option. But there was and is more detail about this house now than would be comfortably covered in the historic district article, so it would not make sense to merge it. --doncram 18:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, User:J947, thanks for responding to my ping, but my point is that "News" is not the right search to run. Google News only covers a few years of news, and does not cover the larger internet of all webpages and does not cover scholarly works. This is a historic house that is not likely to have been in the news. --doncram 20:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • at most weak keep -- This is merely one building in NRHP registered district (or is it a candidate?). Much of the article is not about the house but about Simon Bradstreet, a church minister, who does not seem very notable either. If not kept, merge briefly to Marblehead Historic District. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - While the historic district is significant, and this building is historical, the relevant information from this article (not the stuff about the minister, but the stuff about the building) should be added to Marblehead Historic District. Onel5969 TT me 17:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone. This is as you may have guessed in my first net new page to wiki and the reasons that I think it was worth the time to add it is the follow. I stopped editing the page and adding content as it appeared it was going to be deleted and I wanted to benfit from your feedback and suggestions. The reason that I believe it is worthy of being added here are the following and if you agree I will complete my work over the next two days.

1. Chance Bradsteet an early slave was born here and sold to another party. The house were he lived is currently standing erect at the smithsonian and I have a copy of the the orgincal bill of sale from Isaac Story to Abraham Dodge.

2. The papers of Issac Story are being published by the cambridge libary and have two excellect condition letters. One by George Washonton and one by Thomas Jefferson that were sent to the house. In addition, within the Smithsonian as part of the Thomas Jefferson library there are serveral additional letters talking about jobs, freindship and life after death.

https://thecambridgeroom.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/isaac-story-papers-now-available/

3. I find it interesteresting that the guy that had his office burned down due to the passage of the stamp act died here and also had a Son that was a participant in the Boston Tea party. That must have made holidays somewhat awkward.

4. The age, condition and the fact the home is almost idendentical in the front as when it was built.

If you think it is worth me completing this work I would enjoy that, but I do not want my first page to be out of line with the guildlines.

Thank you for your consideration. --User:DSRitchie, 03:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you can keep working on it. If the page is deleted, any material on the house itself is likely to be merged to the page on the historic district. Material on individuals is a bit different. If you think Simon Bradstreet is notable according to notability guidelines and would make a good page, I would recommend starting in draft space, user space, or using the article wizard to make a page on him, so that the page has some time to develop before being reviewed. The same is true if you are considering creating pages for other individuals. As for the arguments you make, those are interesting, but look to possibly be original research. Wikipedia has a policy against publishing original research, which you can read about here, and while primary sources may be allowed to help create a page, the issue of whether a subject is suitable for inclusion on wikipedia generally is based on the whether or not multiple secondary or tertiary sources discuss the subject in depth, not whether they are interesting. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was wavering between weak keep/neutral/delete - but article creator has mentioned in this discussion not only the house but also Chance Bradstreet and Simon Bradstreet (minister), neither of whom have articles but both of whom look damclose to passing WP:BIO on their own. IMO an article - even in progress - about this house and two of its residents passes WP:GNG. I learned something interesting today (from a WP:AFD, natch!), which is what Wiki is all about. This isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, the other stuff has been found and this article is on its way to being a damgud one. Narky Blert (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS Some of the editors who have posted in this thread might perhaps reread WP:NEWBIES. Narky Blert (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The additional references since this was originally nominated help satisfy GNG. I considered the argument to merge to Marblehead Historic District but the additional information about some of the historically interesting inhabitants of the house would be too much information for just one house at that target and I see no encylopedic purpose that would be served by deleting this information. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources added put the article as meeting the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, at this point the case is much stronger. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Matlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNC, reads like a promotion page, poorly sourced, and not factual. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the very least it is WP:TOOSOON from the perspective of a TV personality or WP:NACTOR and fails WP:GNG.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The page is way too promotional. Matlock might at some point parlay his TV personality career into notability, but he has not done so yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion failed to produce any clear consensus on whether or not the sources provided establish notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Gorilla[edit]

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

Retro video game store not notable outside Seattle. Almost exclusively primary source or local coverage. All other mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (closest would be to create an article on Retrogaming in Seattle, if the sourcing warranted it, but we have no indication that it does). czar 21:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Kohler, Chris (2008-08-31). "PAX: Okay, I Bought China Warrior". Wired. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.

      The article notes:

      Pink Godzilla is pretty fantastic, for what it’s worth. Their prices on classic Japanese games are pretty much what you’d expect to pay in Akihabara. They’re totally reasonable, the people are friendly, and their stock is absurdly deep.

    2. Carson, Biz (2013-11-15). "Seattle's Epic Underground Scene and a Cool Pinball Museum". Wired. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.

      The article notes:

      (5) Pink Gorilla The place to go for all your vintage gaming needs—anything from an Atari Asteroids cartridge for $2.99 to Little Samson, an original Nintendo release, for $550.

    3. Siegel, Scott Jon (2007-02-08). "Off the Grid reviews Pink Godzilla Dev Kit". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.

      The article notes:

      This game was clearly made for me. An analog game about developing digital games? It's like they were listening to my dreams.

      The "they" in this case is Pink Godzilla Games, a hip little video game store based in Seattle. Although their current claim to fame is a ping pong tournament against the Penny Arcade boys, they've also recently gotten into the analog game business. At PAX 2006, they debuted the beta version of the Pink Godzilla Dev Kit, a full-color card game designed by attorney(!) Christopher Rao. It's all about creating video games, and the creators have certainly done their homework when it comes to appealing to the gamer crowd. In-jokes and references abound in this strategy title about everyone's favorite fantasy job.

      ...

      Dev Kit's biggest flaw at the moment is its presentation of the rules, which can be fairly confusing to first-timers. The included manual is laid out in a somewhat illogical order, and the game's myriad of rules, instances, and special cards are presented in a dry, uninteresting manner.

    4. Bennett, Colette (2007-12-19). "Rock out in Seattle at Pinkapalooza". Destructoid. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.

      The article notes:

      Discovering the Pink Godzilla store in Seattle during PAX almost resulted in an orgasmic version of my death. Being the game and toy obsessee that I am, the sheer selection of awesomeness they have avaliable put me in a state of paralysed bliss, which thankfully wore off after ten minutes or so. After recovering, I managed to buy some things and lick the Super Famicom selection a little.

      If you live in Seattle, there is an event hosted by Pink Godzilla tonight that you shouldn't miss. Pinkapalooza is a Rock Band themed charity event being hosted at the Nectar Lounge in Seattle's Fremont District tonight.

      Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources lists Destructoid as a reliable source.
    5. Wong, Brad (2006-09-30). "Pretty Packed in Pink - A Tiny Video-Game Store Filled With Collectibles". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.

      The article notes:

      In this spirit, Seattle businessmen Greg Hess and Nathan Paine hope that Pink Godzilla, their video-game store, will add another touch of bustling Asia to the city's retail scene.

      Just walk into their 280-square- foot store in the International District to find out.

      The two 30-year-olds have managed to cram in more than 5,600 unique items, including game cartridges, figurines, old-school consoles and their company-branded clothing.

    6. 8bitjoystick (2009-06-14). "Pink Godzilla Games is changing their name". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

      The article notes:

      I have some hard-hitting world exclusive videogame industry news to break right here right now on this blog. Seattle’s best retro and import games retailer Pink Godzilla Games is in the process of undergoing a re-branding.

      For the past several years I have greatly enjoyed buying import and retro games at their location in Seattle’s International District near Uwajimayas but in the back of my mind I was always a little worried that the lawyers from Godzilla would send them a strongly worded letter requesting that they changed the name of their business.

    7. Machkovech, Sam (2009-10-02). "Out With Donkey Kong, In With Pink Gorilla". Seattle Metropolitan. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.

      The article notes:

      Leaves one option, then: the International District’s Pink Gorilla. Make that two options—PG is about to open a second spot in the U. District.

      ...

      Since 2005, PG has sat quietly in a multi-shop complex in the ID, one block from Uwajimaya, where its obsessive staff stocks a dreamy selection of rare and Japanese video games. Sandwiched between a manga/anime toy shop and an Asian video store, PG caters nicely to its neighbors’ demographic, though English-speaking geeks have as much to enjoy, from toys and dolls to a cherry-picked selection of classic games. It’s a candyland. But at less than 300 square feet, it’s cozy.

      After years of trying, co-owners Nathan Paine and Greg Hess have finally landed their dream retail location: Right on the freakin’ Ave.

      ...

      The growing chain has also recently released its own collectible card game, built up a successful line of PG-branded merch, and sold gobs of games at events like Seattle’s own Penny Arcade Expo. Even a recent name change (once “Pink Godzilla,” ‘til lawyers came a-callin’) hasn’t disrupted business.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pink Gorilla to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know there was some work in putting together a list of sources but I'm not convinced that they meet the guidelines in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:RS and I don't believe they establish notability. Some are trivial mentions or inclusions in lists (such as 1. and 2.) I like 3. as it appears to be a good independent source but the article is mostly about the game developed by Pink Gorilla and not the company itself. I'd reject 4. as it would not meet the definition of a "reliable" source and a lot of content is user generated. 5. is an advertorial and is not independent as it extensively quotes Primary sources. 6. is a blog and is therefore also refected as a reliable source. And for me, 7. is an advertorial in a local publication. -- HighKing++ 13:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Combining all of the sources together demonstrates notability. The third source is about what the company has produced, its Dev Kit, so it is about the company.

    The fourth source from Destructoid is reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which says "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such." The author is Colette Bennett, a professional journalist. According to https://www.linkedin.com/in/bennettcolette, she was general manager of Destructoid, a freelance writer for CNN, a writer for HLN, and is a senior writer for The Daily Dot. Her article is not user-generated.

    The fifth article contains plenty of non-quoted material.

    The sixth source is from a columnist syndicated to SFGate (link) and Seattle Post-Intelligencer (link). From Technologizer:

    A bit of qualification: I follow 8BitJoystick’s Jake Metcalf on Twitter and he seems like a responsible writer. More importantly, he has a track record of digging up credible inside sources. He famously broke the news that Halo developer Bungie was leaving Microsoft (it was actually amusing to see bigger outlets laugh at him, then eat their words), and has posted a couple other juicy reports as well.

    So when Metcalf says the source was “well vetted,” I believe him, even if the source’s information leaves me skeptical simply because it’s so unbelievable.

    The seventh source is a store review of the subject so it is standard for the author to describe his thoughts about what the store is like.

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sources provided by Cunard have demonstrated notability. This are the types of sources and responses we seek from those seeking inclusion. Not all, but most sources pass our requirement for independent RS. Valoem talk contrib 19:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources are local, not meeting WP:AUD. An establishment of local notability; not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not nearly enough... okay any... in-depth sources. The best source (and there's really only one, is a local source. The rest are simple blurbs or mere mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 02:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see numerous sources in a cursory search. Coupled with those presented above, it seems to meet GNG.104.163.144.60 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: many stores will have local news cover but I don't think it has enough relevance to merit inclusion Porphyro (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Close to no consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 06:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Schwimmer[edit]

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

While Schwimmer's children seem to be notable, he does not seem to pass the notability threshold. Most of the coverage of him is incidental to the coverage of his children. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep He is a dance coach/choreographer who apparently taught his own kids, who became notable dancers, so it's not exaclty WP:INHERIT, more like a notable coach. But I did scal a couple of news searches and there are stories about his activities. looks like it just needs editing, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times section is good but the other is a local paper—significant coverage requires that we have way more than that... czar 02:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A second AfD could be opened. (non-admin closure) J947 21:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oubao Moin[edit]

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

Unremarkable single Nördic Nightfury 08:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per G11, A7. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote it but it's an important song in Puerto Rican culture, I'm from Puerto Rico (there are not a lot of older Puerto Rican songs on here). It's one of Roy Brown's most famous songs. Also can you explain how it's G11? Janj757 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Janj757: I would suggest looking for more sources to support your vote by showing how this song has received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I trust that the man who wrote the policy knows how to interpret it. No prejudice against future recreation if someone can find reliable sources to get it past WP:NMEDIA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WOLD-LP[edit]

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

Unremarkale radio station Nördic Nightfury 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite its small range, it's an FCC-licensed community station, meeting WP:BROADCAST and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES (I'm WP:AGF'ng on this one that NNF didn't know about the cited policies). Nate • (chatter) 06:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, NMEDIA explicitly states that reliable sourcing about a radio station is required for an article to become keepable — and you need to trust me on this, because I haven't just read NMEDIA, I personally wrote most of NMEDIA. It certainly has a valid potential claim of notability, but it doesn't have a notability claim that exempts it from having to be properly referenced. Accordingly, I'm willing to reconsider my position if somebody can actually locate a real reference or two, but having an FCC license does not in and of itself confer a "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie on an article that cites no evidence of any RS coverage anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the WP:NMEDIA section on radio stations states that "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." if it has one of those it's good to go. Americanfreedom (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which contradicts what I said how, exactly? I didn't question whether the station has a notability claim at all — but NMEDIA also explicitly states that the notability claim has to be supported by reliable sourcing. It's not enough to just assert that a radio station passes the notability criteria — reliable source referencing has to be present to support the accuracy of the claim. No claim of notability ever hands any topic an exemption from that, because people can and do insert inflated or outright false notability claims into Wikipedia — so an article can make a thousand notability claims, and still get deleted if those claims aren't and can't be referenced properly. NMEDIA's notability standards are not in conflict with what I said, because I was addressing the sourcing problem and not the question of whether it technically has a notability claim or not.
Long story short, having "a large audience, established broadcast history or unique programming" counts as notability if it's supported by referencing which shows those things to actually be true — but an article does not get kept just because one or more of those things have been claimed without sourcing them properly, because people have created articles about radio stations which falsely claimed that the criteria had been met when they actually hadn't been. So it's the quality of sourcing present in the article that determines whether it actually gets kept or not, not just the presence of an unsourced statement of claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to We the Kings. (non-admin closure) J947 06:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Duncan (musician)[edit]

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

Not a significant person. Jonathon3378 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Redirect to We the Kings. The article has a large number of sources, all about the band, with brief mention of Duncan as the drummer. Even the birthday item mentions him as a member of the band. Searches found nothing helpful. Lacking significant coverage independent of the band a redirect is appropriate per WP:MUSICBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Gab4gab, it's mentioned on Alternative Press that he is also a YouTuber, which I think makes his role independent from the band. Mjbmr (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mjbmr, There's some mention of YouTube in that article but that's minor coverage that's not independent because it appears in an interview of the band. If there were multiple articles in mainstream publications written by independent authors discussing his YouTuber activity then he might be notable enough for a separate article.
  • Redirect to We the Kings. Sources demonstrate no independent notability, all are to the band, not to the drummer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn B. Przekurat[edit]

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

I was able to find her husband's family paid for biography in a local Albaqueque News paper, and her sisters paid for obituary in the Deseret News in Salt Lake City. From that I learned her maiden name is Bjorkman, and she evidently usaully goes by Carrie. I did find a directory listing calling Carolun Przekurat a New Mexico licensed dietician. There is this article [22] on nutrician services for alcohol/substance abuse clients that has Carolyn Przekurat as 6 listed of 8 authors. Here [23] we find her on a list of 101 confirmed public health service people, with the postion of dietician director. At best we have one source that might pass the GNG, although I would have to do some other searches to find the LDS Church news source to assess things like how large it is, but even if we assume it adds towards GNG, GNG requires multiple sources which we lack. Everything else is even less clearly a reliable source, or just a directory listing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find a small amount of passing coverage in newspapers.com, but nothing in depth. She seems to have an entry in: Who's Who in the West, 25th edition, 1996-1997. Marquis. New Providence, NJ, but I do not have access to that and am not sure it would establish notability. I don't see anything in other databases (Genealogybank, google services) Looking at other versions of her name, I also see some results for a Carol, but not clearly the same person and nothing in depth. Here is a link to the LDS page which is broken to me in the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20160304220923/http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/24048/Dietician-named-to-top-post.html. I am commenting rather than giving a !vote because the position of chief dietitian officer is a fairly significant post (you can get an idea of the org chart looking at: https://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/leadership.aspx) and might even satisfy WP:NPOL #1 and WP:POLOUTCOMES bullet point 1, but I can't tell. Otherwise, I'd !vote weak delete. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There's very little out there about her and she does not satisfy NPOL #1. A "chief dietician officer" is a technical advisor, not a legislator. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Extremely close to becoming a delete; but the delete arguments weigh just above the keep arguments, but not enough for it to be called a 'consensus'. Another AfD may be initiated. (non-admin closure) J947 01:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Guillermo[edit]

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

This seems to be about a rather obscure person who is distantly related to the Dutch royal family by means of his mother. Of course he might get a mention or two in the odd press article because of this but other than that, he seems to lack substantial coverage and appears to be like any other private individual with a relatively well-known parent. Re5x (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too outlying a member of a royal family to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've added two additional sources. – Editør (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I don't think "too outlying" is a good argument for deletion. There are multiple reports about him in Dutch main stream media. The article should not be deleted, unless there is a convincing argument that these reports don't establish notability. – Editør (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as "significant coverage" (sadly) and notability is not intherited.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per talk's defense. If this isn't notable then a purge of many (many) European royals would be in order. --NoGhost (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is not even royalty... Only related and I guess a great deal many would be if they looked far back enough. --Re5x (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient sources for notability, only gossip-level coverage.  Sandstein  22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable per above. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelle Prior[edit]

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

Previously declined twice by different editors at AfC before being moved to mainspace with little improvement. Non-notable individual who doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Additionally the content is written in a promotional tone not indicative of encyclopedic content. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've formatted and checked the references - notable person - written by someone with poor English but not promotional - needs cleanup MarkDask 03:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still for Keep.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know by now, as a fairly frequent editor at Afd, only one bolded !vote per editor, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Promotional tone, yes, but that is a content issue, not a notability one. The sources linked in the article (e.g., The Graphic and SpyAfrica) indicate she passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Assiter[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. Online results try to sell her books or mention her in passing. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references I have listed on the article talk page. Article does need cleaning up, but subject does appear to be notable, also meeting criterion #3 of WP:NACADEMIC twice.LadyofShalott 04:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure whether the FRSA is selective enough, but AcSS [24] is definitely enough for WP:PROF#C3, and the citation record on Google scholar also makes a plausible case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per citations and extensive publication list. Meets WP:PROF 104.163.144.60 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.T (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling stable in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this grouping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. 13:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eggishorn --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 02:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Okai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Okai has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As unverified. Assuming the article, as written is accurate, the subject would meet WP:NSPORT, but most of the content is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Information in here is so unreliable as to essentially be a hoax. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to have any substantial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brave (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling stable in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this grouping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 11:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wild Order[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling stable in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this grouping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 11:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thornton Henderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Created by SPA and later expanded by another SPA using the same name as the subject. Unreferenced and searching doesn't turn up much. His books can be found listed for sale on Amazon, but are not very popular. MB 00:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any indication that this author or his books are of any importance whatsoever. They all seem to be the evangelical equivalent of pulp, mostly or all published by outlets who specialize in turning out lots and lots of the same. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHIPDS[edit]

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

A Google search of this term reveals no results other than this article and mirrors. Concurring with User:Srijankedia that this is a hoax, or at best WP:SYNTH. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty clearly. Content added by one single-purpose account nine years ago. Not a hoax, but just a random collection of buzzwords. Not a wikipedia topic at all, certainly not the acronym! W Nowicki (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Matlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNC, reads like a promotion page, poorly sourced, and not factual. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the very least it is WP:TOOSOON from the perspective of a TV personality or WP:NACTOR and fails WP:GNG.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The page is way too promotional. Matlock might at some point parlay his TV personality career into notability, but he has not done so yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: In this situation, a page history merge was performed here. The merged article was then moved to 1998 NFC Championship Game (per the NFL/American football convention, it is the year of the regular season, not the calendar year this was actually played). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is essentially a duplicate. Under advise from other Wikipedians in order for this topic to fall under general notability, I created the page 1999 NFC Championship Game as a new article to cover the same topic. I did not perform a simple move on the page because unfortunately, I got locked out of my old account, and my new account has yet to be auto-verified. (Therefore, I can't perform moves.) Helltopay-27 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are going to need to be history merged. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Candlestick[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue with these pages? Working with the director Barry Jenkins on his Moonlight soundtrack does meet wiki standards? Here is some info [1][2] And DJ Hollygrove was a producer on a Viceland show[3] User:Ocean03 16:54 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Moonlight Directs Boost a Chopped and Screwed version Of Its Soundtrack".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017
  2. ^ ""Moonlight" Director Barry Jenkins Teams Up With The Chopstars For "Purple Moonlight" Mixtape".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017
  3. ^ ""The Black Market With Michael K Williams" The Lean Scene (TV Episode 2016)". Retrieved 22 December 2016.
The first two sources listed don't even mention "DJ Hollygrove", and the third source only mentions his name, and nothing else. Please see WP:E=N. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources provided, especially the attempted save sources, do not give the indepth coverage neccesary to add towards passing the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding these three external links. None of these articles contribute in any way to this person's notability, since none of the articles are actually about "DJ Candlestick". They merely mention his name--once--along with other names. Please take a moment to read WP:E=N. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Fanciulli[edit]

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

The whole text is written like promotional material by artist's agency. Arturas0423 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if we accept ResidentAdvisor as a reliable source, the only significant coverage we have in the entire article is an album review for a collaboration between the subject and another person. That isn't enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tramlink#Extension D .2F Route 5. czar 06:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tramlink Route 5[edit]

Tramlink Route 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable article about a tram line which was never built. Not enough sources are available to make it pass WP:GNG. Also may fail WP:CRYSTAL, however I'm not entirely sure this applies as the plans have been cancelled. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely or just mention it in the Tramlink article. It was only "proposed", doesn't really warrant its own page/section in an article. Nördic Nightfury 08:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. fails WP:NSEASONS without some kind of notable, thematic connection that can be verified through WP:RS: "This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VCU Rams men's soccer, 1978–89[edit]

VCU Rams men's soccer, 1978–89 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod that did not deal with the relevant guidelines. WP:NSEASONS is crystal clear: college seasons are only presumed notable when the program in question either wins a national championships or at the very least qualifies for the NCAA division I Championship. This team has not in the years covered here. There is no indication of GNG either as the article is simply a stat dump Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NSEASONS also explicitly says that in cases where individual seasons are non-notable, multiple seasons can be grouped together. That's exactly what happened here. I don't see the issue. Smartyllama (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's completely wrong, NSEASONS does not say that merging two+ non-notable articles, inherently makes a notable article. It needs to satisfy the following criterion, stated in NSEASONS, namely: This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.
In what way does this article satisfy that criterion? There is only information, and in this case just stats, for one season. As such it cannot in its current state satisfy any criterion of NSEASONS, let alone this one.
The key phrase is sufficient coverage, i.e. that the seasons as a set would have to pass GNG through coverage based on some kind of clearly articulated grouping. This article makes no attempt to do this whatsoever. Could you please clarify how this article satisfies NSEASONS, as I am concerned you have misunderstood it. Fenix down(talk) 18:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fenix, there's no need to clarify, college soccer is irrelevant, and there is more purging needed. GLenhart1 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you're pinning significant coverage under, a quick search of VCU men's soccer draws 37,000 Google News results. Maybe WP:CLEANUP is needed, but that doesn't mean we go ahead and put it under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be relevant if we were discussing the program, where is GNG for any of these seasons? Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you search for each season on Google and draws nearly 10,000 results.
  • Delete I don't see that grouping the seasons together where they fail WP:NSEASONS helps them now pass it. A list of all seasons may be ok, but this is not. Number 57 13:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - per SmartyLllama. Also place a block warning on Fenix down for the spam nomination. Cobyan02069 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Closing admin, please note this autoblock indicating that Cobyan and Glenhart have some kind of connection. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't spread lies like that. Cobyan02069 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Screw you. GLenhart1 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because college soccer is stupid. GLenhart1 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not meet NSEASONS, this still requires there to be a common thread through the seasons for which GNG can be shown. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm failing to see where there isn't one, can you please assist? Quidster4040 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could if there was something more than just stats for one season. I'm not seeing any evidence that in any of these seasons that the team qualified for the NCAA division I Championship. Though in that case that individual season would be notable for its own article anyway. I'm not aware of any sources that discuss these seasons as a whole that would satisfy GNG. Simply being seasons of a program where other season are notable does not make these, even if they are grouped together notable. Simply put, beyond results summaries, where is the significant independent coverage of this period of the program? Fenix down (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could potentially meet WP:NSEASONS, at this very moment it does not because only information from 1 season is included and that information is just a schedule which would I believe is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. If other seasons are added into this article and the information included details, as in a roster, coaching staff, all-conference players, etc., then it would pass.--Rockchalk717 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per most of what's been said above. There is insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, and at present it doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to what's been said above I'd like to point out that the grouping doesn't make much sense. VCU were independent from 1978 to 1987, when they joined the sunbelt, and they changed coaches in 1982. There is no common thread holding these 12 seasons together. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1 (Non-admin close comment) -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty One Pilots (album by Twenty One Pilots)[edit]

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

Still not enough content to meet WP:NALBUM. Previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty One Pilots (Twenty One Pilots album), closed less than six months ago. Notice that the article is also located at the wrong location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is not enough and it has notability,orphan issue. Sawongam (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has entered the Billboard 200. Karst (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument wasn't enough last time. Clearly its entry wasn't enough to constitute enough for an article. The fact it entered the 200 could easily be covered in a single line in the band's discography article. See @Mz7: !vote and commentary in the last AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Similar to what I said in the last AFD, I think it possible that this album be comparable to Bleach (Nirvana album), where it failed to chart in its initial release and would have probably failed an AFD had Wikipedia existed in 1990, but went on to be very notable and sales success after the band had a later album release that was massively successful and won all sorts of awards. It seems such a scenario is very possible with Twenty One Pilots, with their recent platinum album and multiple Grammy Award wins. However, I'm not sure we're there yet. Is right now comparable to 1990's Nirvana or 1995's Nirvana? My main hang up is that we're still unable to find a single album review or RS that covers this album in detail, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I apologize if I may seem as a nuisance regarding the notability and creation of this article, I just feel it's notable enough to have its own article, I will search for more reliable sources and look for more professional reviews and see if I can improve this album's notability to be enough for its inclusion on Wikipedia. Coda16 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - it can be expanded on and it charted. Notable enough. --Jennica✿ / talk 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jennica - Like what though? Literally, no one has found any in-depth sources on it, and it's been six months now. What would you specifically add? Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 Hm. This didn't occur to me, honestly. I think it's semi-notable because it's their debut album. It's probably unlikely that it would be reviewed by any new publication. Jesus Freak Hideout reviewed it and I've seen that on several pages here but I may be just grasping at straws now. --Jennica✿ / talk 03:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being notable purely because its the first album of a notable band is textbook WP:NOTINHERITED violation though. And I think that Jesus Freak Hideout review has come up in the past before too. If you look closely at the bottom, you'll notice the its signed off as "JFH Reader Review". So, I believe that source would fail WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the JFH review is not a staff review, it's a "reader review" and fails WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't find much reliable-source coverage but as a charted album by a notable band it clearly has some notability. Most of this is already in the band/discography articles, it just comes down the the recurring issue of losing the tracklist as we don't have an agreed way of incorporating these in discographies. The previous article was probably better, so I think delete this one as a duplicate, and if there's a better case in the future for an article on this album, resurrect the previous article and move it to Twenty One Pilots (album). --Michig (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Honestly, I don't really find any harm in including this article, it has a decent amount of sources, especially compared to some other album pages, and it has charted, on the Billboard 200 at that. It can be expanded on as time progresses. (talk) Coda16 07:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per all above reasoning. --Aleccat 15:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So to summarize the keep nominations, there are no sources to verify notability, but because Wikipedia has lots of space there's no harm in keeping the article around. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Walter Görlitz - The article seems notable enough, though... (talk) Coda16 05:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpages[edit]

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

The website/publication is not notable.   Tentinator   15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 03:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djay Adx[edit]

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

Person is notable, however all sources are either irrelevant or are 'wiki-looped'- the sources are just references back to wikipedia. This seems more like a bio than a wiki. Where is all this timeline, life stories, biographical data, etc. coming from? JacobiJonesJr (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nominator admits that the subject is notable; AfD is not cleanup Spiderone 12:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Appears to meet criteria 5 & 10 of WP:MUSICBIO (just...). Does not otherwise meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Notably, there is a remarkably poor availability of secondary sources on searching. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information for this article came from an episode of "BBC Introducing on Friction"[1] but that episode is not available to listen anymore. I know someone who wrote this article after listening to the interview.

References

  1. ^ "BBC Introducing on Friction: Nau Sau Bai". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 20 June 2011.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedurally closed. This discussion has been completely thrown off the rails by a disruptive/socking editor. As I refuse to reward such behavior, this discussion is procedurally closed. (Note: This close is without prejudice against a 2nd nomination being opened at any time, by any editor, in good standing.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Rowe[edit]

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

An obscure activist. All sources cited in this article are autism-related websites, a dead link, and sites like Goodreads (a book review website, I'm not sure you're even allowed to use that as a source on Wikipedia). I can't find a single mention of her in mainstream media. She appears to be completely unknown outside of the "autism community" and is therefore not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. SThompson (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is not sourced to reliable sources. Nothing indicates the level of reliable source coverage we need for a writer or an activist. I have great admiration for the work she is doing, but it has not reached the level of attention in reliable secondary sources to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a significant author in the field of aspergers, does have coverage such as Huffington Post here Atlantic306 (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She is only featured in a small portion of that Huffington Post article. That is not nearly enough coverage to justify keeping the Wikipedia page. There is a problem with the lack of reliable secondary sources about her which is the main reason I proposed that the article be deleted. While her books may be significant to people with Aspergers, her work has not received adequate attention outside of the autism community to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia page.SThompson (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll take the strict policy-based approach. See WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Alis Rowe has NOT received significant coverage in reliable published secondary sources. As far as I know the only usable secondary sources that have given coverage to Rowe are the aforementioned Huffington Post article and the Reading local news article cited; however, neither article is actually about Rowe and in both she is only mentioned in passing. The basic criteria also says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would say that the coverage of Alis Rowe in secondary sources is indeed trivial. Also see WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional." One of the sources cited, Able Magazine, describes itself on its website as a magazine that "Highlights and PROMOTES lifestyle issues important to disabled people in the UK." It describes itself as promotional, which means it's considered a questionable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Also see WP:SPS: "Self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." One of the sources cited, the Jigsaw Tree, is a group blog so it would not be acceptable as a source according to these guidelines. Needless to say, Amazon and Goodreads should not be cited as sources on Wikipedia. Based on this, my conclusion is that the Alis Rowe article does NOT meet the criteria for notability or for reliable sources and should be deleted.Sdc3000 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability within a specialty field is enough to meet GNG. A magazine such as Able is more than adequate 3rd party coverage… advocacy is not the same as “selfpub” or in-house promotional material. One could as easily say that Car & Driver “PROMOTES” cars and driving. Still would be RS for specs on a Honda Civic… Montanabw(talk) 08:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A person with notability within a specialty field is only notable enough for a Wikipedia article if that person has enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. As I said before, the main problem is the quality of the sources cited. A mention in Able magazine is not enough to establish notability, and there are very few mentions of her in reliable secondary sources. I don't know enough about Able to say whether or not it counts as a reliable source. If it does, that means there are only three reliable secondary sources that cover her, and two of those (Huffpo and Getreading) only mention her in a small portion of the article. As I also said before, the article cites a dead link, Goodreads (a book review website), Amazon (an online store), Jigsaw Tree (a blog), and Future Horizons (a group that spreads media about autism) but the page cited only has a few sentences about her and I'm not sure that it counts as a reliable secondary source.SThompson (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG seems to be met by my standards along the lines Montanabw suggests. I don't see a suitable merge target. As a comment to Sdc3000 it is of course just fine as a personal decision to take a "strict policy-based approach" but notability is a guideline, not a policy, and it is contrary to the guideline to take such an approach. However, as the guideline says, it is only advisory. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that a "strict policy-based approach" may be too, well, strict but I still can't see how you could say that she receives enough attention to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are almost no reliable secondary sources that could be used for this article, and the few that do exist say very little about her, and don't contain nearly enough information for a Wikipedia article.SThompson (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources cited are largely unreliable. I went through five page of Google search results and didn't see any good secondary sources. It looks like this issue can't be solved. On the issue of notability, a brief mention in Huffington Post and the Reading Post's free Friday edition does not prove notability. This issue also can't be solved. My two cents is that an issue with two big unsolvable issues should be deleted.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought I needed to point out there is an important problem that has not been adequately addressed by people voting to keep the article, and that is the problem with the lack or reliable secondary sources. I have to wonder if they have looked at the sources cited in the article. There are seven secondary sources. One is a dead link (Richmond), one is a blog (Jigsaw Tree), one is a book review website (Goodreads), and one is an online store (Amazon). Everyone should be able to agree that these are not reliable secondary sources. Another (Future Horizons) appears to be a website that sells media about autism. I don't think this counts as a reliable source. Another is a local newspaper article (Reading) about an autism conference. This is a reliable source, but there is only one sentence about Alis Rowe in this entire article. The last source (Able magazine) may be reliable but that could be debated. That makes, at most, two reliable secondary sources and one of them contains only one sentence about Rowe. No offense to whomever wrote the article, but they must have been desperate for sources to cite Goodreads, Amazon, and the Jigsaw Tree blog. That should tell you something about Rowe's lack of notability and coverage in secondary sources. This is the main reason I proposed the article be deleted, and this problem needs to be addressed by anyone voting to keep.SThompson (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear lack of reliable secondary sources. No eligible additional sources found on a quick look either. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC interview, Able Magazine national award nominee profile, and other refs meet WP:GNG, though some need clean up. She also appears to be featured as an expert for national organizations and publications such as National Autistic Society (UK), AuKids Magazine and others. Hmlarson (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC Radio link lists her as an interviewee, it does not appear to actually have the interview. I don't see how that could be used as a source in the article. I'm not sure that the National Autistic Society and AuKids count as reliable secondary sources, especially since she appears to be connected to them (a secondary source has to be independent of the subject). This still fails to establish notability and none of these count as reliable secondary sources that could be used in the article. You mentioned "other refs" that you say would establish notability. Could you name them?SThompson (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I just listened to the entire 13-minute+ interview by clicking play on the video. It's the fourth segment entitled, Living with Autism which you can access directly once you hit play on the video. She's also noted as a "public figure" by the interviewer. Hmlarson (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fourth segment. Another example of trivial coverage. It was pointed out earlier that Wikipedia guidelines state that trivial coverage is not enough to establish notability. It doesn't really matter that the interviewer called her a public figure; I proposed that the article be deleted because of the lack of reliable secondary sources about her, not because I don't think she counts as a public figure. My understanding is that Wikipedia judges notability based mostly on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the keywords being significant, reliable, and secondary. All examples of sources so far have been trivial (HuffPo, Getreading, BBC Radio) in which she is featured in a small portion of an article or radio program, unreliable (Goodreads, Jigsaw Tree), questionable (Able magazine), an online store (Amazon, Future Horizons), or primary (AuKids, National Autistic Society). Do you or anybody else have any examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources?SThompson (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13+ minute interview on BBC Radio is trivial to you in addition to the other sources you note. Ok! You've made your arguments repeatedly in this discussion. Is there a reason you need to repeat them after another editor disagrees? Or is this another case of WP:BADGER? Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC Radio interview is not enough to establish notability. That takes numerous examples of significant coverage in secondary sources. If you want to call the interview significant, then it is only one example. I keep repeating those points because nobody has addressed any of them. I'll ask you point blank, do you think Goodreads, an online store, a blog, and a dead link are reliable sources?SThompson (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the majority of the references you have a problem with have already been removed. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodreads is sill there, the Jigsaw Tree blog is still there, the online store Future Horizons is still there. The Richmond dead link was replaced with an active one, but it is yet another example of trivial coverage in which an article that isn't about her mentions her briefly. AuKids and the National Autistic Society article that she wrote are both primary sources because she is connected to them, and secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. And interesting that you didn't answer my question.SThompson (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Goodreads list is just a list. It doesn't contribute to notability, any more than the list of her books at Amazon wood. A blogs are SPS and don't conribute to N either. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British Weight Lifting site you added is yet another example of trivial coverage. It is about the coach Martyn Riley and barely mentions Alis Rowe. While it appears you removed Amazon as a source, the article still cites Goodreads (book reviews), Jigsaw Tree (blog), Future Horizons (online store) and Richmond (dead link). Everybody should be able to agree that these are not reliable. The article now cites nine secondary sources which are the four unreliable ones I just pointed out, four reliable sources that give trivial coverage to Rowe (HuffPo, Getreading, BBC Radio, British Weight Lifting) and one questionable source (Able magazine). Your edits didn't solve the problem. There is still no evidence of significant coverage of Alis Rowe in reliable secondary sources.SThompson (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the point of the British Weight Lifting piece is it adds a citation for a sentence that did not have one and points to another article in Autism Magazine from the National Autism Society in which she is featured. She discusses weightlifting in the BBC interview prompted by the host. Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the reason you cited it, but it is still trivial and does nothing to establish notability. As for the article it points to, she appears to be connected to the National Autism Society (she wrote the article for which you provided a link in a previous comment) in which case it may not count as a secondary source (a secondary source has to be independent of the subject). Secondary sources are needed to establish notability.SThompson (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to let other editors have a look and provide their input. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you're saying is that you refuse to address any of the problems I have brought up a.k.a. the reasons the article was nominated for deletion. Got it.SThompson (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an interesting and subjective interpretation of what I said. To each her own. Hmlarson (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. this is marginal. I was heading toward keep because she has published a lot of books but then I saw that they all appear to be self-published, on Amazon's CreateSpace or through her self-publishing imprint, Lonely Mind books. If you take those away, as we should, you are not left with much. I am going to have to say delete for now. This may be a WP:TOOSOON thing. Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that the article's subject lacks notability simply because her notability is limited to a niche audience. WP:N tells us that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines...." As such, I believe strongly that the subject meets WP:N guidelines with reliable source links coming from the Huffington Post, the BBC and the U.K. National Autistic Society. Her work is now in its fourth year, so her notability has "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." In my opinion, the guidelines suggest that articles must meet a minimum standard not an abundance of that standard.73.131.228.245 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — 73.131.228.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The reasons for deleting the article are less to do with her "niche audience" and more to do with the lack of secondary sources. I'll admit I should've better phrased my original statement. The problem with the BBC Radio and National Autistic Society is that they are primary sources (BBC is an interview, which counts as a primary source, and she wrote the National Autistic Society article), as are AuKids (she is involved with it) and the Curly Hair Project (her own website). Recent edits that have added these sources have actually created a new problem because the article now relies too heavily on primary sources. While she is mentioned briefly in a few reliable sources, that is not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia states "Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. Information about an author from the book jacket copy of the author's own book does not demonstrate notability, for example. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. However topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline." The Huffington Post article, the British Weight Lifting Article, the Reading article, and the Richmond article only mention her briefly and are not about her. Everyone should be able to agree that Goodreads, the Jigsaw Tree blog, and the Future Horizons store are poor quality secondary sources. It appears that Wikipedia states this article shouldn't be kept.SThompson (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a good time for an update. There are two new problems that haven't been addressed yet. 1. Due to recent edits to the article, it now relies too heavily on primary sources. They are the BBC Radio interview (interviews are primary sources), the National Autistic Society article (she wrote it herself), AuKids (she is connected to it), and the Curly Hair Project (her own website). The addition of primary sources does nothing to establish notability and there is still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, therefore no evidence of notability. 2. It was brought up recently that her books are self-published as evidenced here. This should call into question her notability. Wikipedia doesn't generally give much weight to self-published authors.SThompson (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although this case is more "borderline" than many, I can see some notability coming from the niche publications. There's nothing suspect about that -- people who operate in specialised areas can be expected to derive their coverage from specialty publications. That's true for many of the academics who have articles here. And it is certainly true for the hundreds upon hundreds of sports figures whose articles are sourced solely to an on-line sports database (and it is difficult to imagine anything more "niche" than that). I also see some notability coming from the BBC interview. Although we tend to downplay the significance of interviews in our notability discussions, the fact remains that the BBC does not have an unlimited amount of air time and that some editorial discretion went into the decision to devote some of that time to the subject. I also note that the nominator here has been insistent about removing sources from the article while the discussion is still on-going, doing so based on their declaration that the sources are unreliable and that, by removing them, the discussants will have "accurate information". But the reliability and usefulness of sources are precisely what we discuss here at Articles for Deletion. The nominator's insistence on hiding them from potential discussants suggests that the nominator does not believe that their argument is strong enough to withstand scrutiny and this, in turn, pushes me even further in the direction of "keep". NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources I wanted removed are a blog, online stores, and Goodreads. Everyone should be able to agree that these are unreliable sources. The other source to which I have some objections, Able magazine, is of questionable quality but I have not removed because I think there needs to be a discussion about it. It is questionable because it doesn't come from an established reputable publisher (the publisher is Primas Media LTD. https://www.linkedin.com/company/primas-media-ltd) and it has been pointed out before that the Able magazine article may be too promotional. Here are a few quotes. "Alis Rowe is both an acclaimed author and the founding CEO of esteemed social enterprise, The Curly Hair Project." "With great difficulty and determination, she has managed to overcome such social obstacles." "One impressive example of Alis’ defiance against her Asperger’s  is the fact that she has a strong academic track record." "Incredibly, Alis has managed to do this through writing and publishing a range of books." " To date, ‘the girl with the curly hair’ Facebook page has earned over a staggering 9,300 ‘likes.’" "There is absolutely no surprise as to why she has been shortlisted for the Entrepreneur of Excellence award at the National Diversity Awards 2014." Sounds pretty promotional to me, and therefore of questionable reliability.SThompson (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There just aren't enough reliable sources. As noted by Jytdog above, the books are all self published. Now coming to the sources available,
  • BBC This is a brief interview where the subject was a guest. We require sources where someone else is talking about the subject, not where the subject is talking. (And these kind of brief interviews are a dime a dozen)
  • Autism.org Entirely written by the subject, so clearly not an independent sources
  • Aukids Self published magazine which simply lists the subjects name in a page called "experts". No indication why and anyway, this is not significant coverage
  • LonelyMindBook Yes, this the subject's self publishing imprint as noted above
  • HuffingtonPost The secondary coverage is 2 sentences, 3 sentences are quotes by the subject. This is really brief.
  • Every single of the other sources in the article are either primary/affiliated or not reliable.
Overall, this is just WP:TOOSOON. The sources are not good enough. There is also clear conflict of interest editing (See Special:Contributions/JustAnotherWiki166), which looks an attempt to promote the subject's books. I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article looks "padded." It's divided into four sections, too many for such a short article, and has two photos; normally only longer articles have multiple pictures. There are also repetitious statements: it's repeated three times that she founded the Curly Hair Project, twice that she as Asperger's and four times that she writes about autism, to provide a few examples. This article is severely lacking substance and this likely can't be remedied since coverage of her in secondary sources is negligible. If you remove the padding-the photos, the repeated statements, the unnecessary section headings-you're left with five or six sentences and a list of her self-published books. Not much of an article. Imalawyer (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has sourcing in Huffington Post and a biography written in Able Magazine. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia states that trivial mentions aren't enough to establish notability and "Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. However topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline." The Huffington Post article, while a reliable source, is not about her and mentions her only briefly (a few very short paragraphs in a very long article). Able magazine may not be a quality source because it doesn't come from an established reputable publisher and may be too promotional. This is not evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, therefore this article does not pass GNG.SThompson (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the Huffington Post is the best we can find, she doesn't meet the GNG, because we do not usually regard it as a RS, at least for living people; the degree of editorial control is much too erratic, and contributors can write about whatever they want to. It's published, not edited in the convention sense. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yet more problems have been brought up.
  • 1. The problem of padding. It was pointed out that the article keeps repeating itself. The picture with Tony Attwood appears to be for the purpose of padding and/or an attempt to establish "notability by association." I don't see why a short article needs two pictures and I've never seen another article of this length with more than one picture.
  • 2. The creator of this article, as you can see here (Special:Contributions/JustAnotherWiki166), has only made seven edits. One for the creation of the article, five edits to the article after its creation, and one edit to another article a year later. It appears this person may have joined Wikipedia for the sole purpose of creating this article. As further evidence, here are a few quotes from the original version. "Alis Rowe is a well-known author and speaker on Asperger's Syndrome in the UK. She is the founder of The Curly Hair Project, which has nearly 20,000 followers and aims to help women and girls with Asperger's Syndrome." "She lives in London and is one of the leading speakers in her field." "Since then she has written over a dozen more books, all of which have received an abundance of praise. "She has also received lots of awards for her work, including the prestigious Temple Grandin Award." This is an obvious example of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMO. That this article began as an apparent attempt to promote an activist with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is a strong argument for its deletion.SThompson (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is absolutely zero evidence of conflict of interest despite your melodramatic affrontery, the article may well have been written by a fan of her books who may have been a little over-enthusiastic but that has been toned down by later edits. It is also worth noting that this article was approved by the WP:AFC process. Regarding your own editcount it is mainly centered on this AFD and nominating another aspergers author article so by your own logic do you have a conflict of interest regarding autism/aspergers publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't say conflict of interest, I said promotion and advocacy. Those are different things. The evidence for it is stated above, so I won't restate it. I think the creator of this article is probably a fan of her books, and that you suggested the same thing and called the original version "over-enthusiastic" is an admission that there is evidence for it. Since you brought up the AFC, I thought I should point out that this person submitted two of them, and the first was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JustAnotherWiki166). This is further evidence that 1. this person really wanted the article to be created and 2. the first editor who reviewed it questioned the quality of the sources and rejected it.SThompson (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most successful AFC submissions are declined at first then improved with added references etc and approved on a second, third or more review. That is what happened in this case as after first refusal more references were added so it was approved on second review.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears what happened is that the editor who approved it was lenient about sources. The original version's sources included Amazon, Goodreads, and blogs. I don't see how that could be an improvement over whatever was in the first submission.SThompson (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional references incorporated including, but not limited to: Marie Claire Magazine (UK), Healthy Magazine, Your Autism Magazine, and Surrey Hills Community Radio. Maybe the not-so-random IP address making edits will find some more or comment below to discredit. Hmlarson (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Surrey Hills Community Radio interview is a primary source. Interviews are primary sources (https://www.sccollege.edu/Library/Pages/primarysources.aspx). We've been through this already. Your Autism Magazine is a primary source because it is distributed by the National Autistic Society, with which she is involved as evidence by the fact that she wrote about herself for the NAS page (http://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/tmi/stories/alis.aspx). Secondary sources have to be independent of the subject. And only half of the article is about her. I can't read the Marie Claire article because it isn't online, but the title "The Truth About Women And Autism" suggests that it may be like the Huffington Post one, an article that isn't about her and only mentions her briefly. The Unltd. page barely mentions her at all and is an obvious example of WP:TRIVIAL. The Bath Echo article and the Richmond & Twickenham Times article are fine, but a couple articles in local papers is not enough to establish notability.SThompson (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A breakdown of the recent changes. Seven of the fifteen sources cited are primary, which are the BBC Radio and Surrey Hills Community Radio interviews (interviews are primary sources), the National Autistic Society profile (she wrote the profile herself and is connected to this group), the Your Autism Magazine article (she wrote it and the magazine is distributed by the National Autistic Society, with which she is connected), the Healthy Magazine article (a brief article that she wrote), AuKids (she is connected with it, which is all the cited page says), and the Curly Hair Project is her own website. Secondary sources have to be independent of the subject, therefore these are all primary sources. The Getreading article, the Richmond article, and the UnLtd. page all have only one sentence about her, therefore they are all obvious examples of WP:TRIVIAL. The Huffington Post article isn't about her and mentions her only briefly. This is not significant coverage. The Bath Echo article and the Richmond & Twickenham Times article are both from local papers, and generally more weight is given to national media outlets in establishing notability. A one-page Marie Claire article is cited, but it is not available online so its contents are unknown. The lase source, Able magazine, appears to be an example of WP:QUESTIONABLE as the article cited is very promotional, the magazine does not come from a reputable established publisher, and it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Even after these changes this article still fails WP:GNG because it does not have enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and still relies too heavily on primary sources (seven out of fifteen, nearly half) and trivial coverage.SThompson (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Sthompson and Imalawyer are  Confirmed socks of Sdc3000--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeppasses GNG L3X1 (distant write) 18:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Some mentions, but not enough in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 03:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anti-Zionism#Jewish Anti-Zionism. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Anti-Zionism[edit]

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

This is a coatrack article from Haredim and Zionism Most of what is in here is either already in there, or can be merged into it. In addition, this article is full of OR and SYNTH, from the first sentence it starts with OR. (For those who like history, the 169 IP is Daniel575 (talk · contribs).) Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge besides for the capitalization issues with the article title, I actually think the two should be merged, and this be the surviving article. Haredim and Zionism is a much better and more complete article, but on a very specific topic. I think the Haredim article could benefit from being merged into the other article, as it could leave room for comparison to other Jewish groups, making it an even more comprehensive article. - GalatzTalk 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Haredim and Zionism, which is actually the one with the broader topic, since it leaves room for coverage of their wide range of views on Zionism (WP:BALANCE), not just anti-Zionism. If anyone is looking for a general discussion of opposition to Zionism – it's already well covered under Zionism#Opposition -- IsaacSt (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anti-Zionism#Jewish_Anti-Zionism. A size or content split is not justified. See WP:SPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. A merge with the Haredim article would not be advisable due to its coverage of a much narrower topic. --NoGhost (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if it is found he meets WP:NMOTORSPORT because of the stock car stuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wade (ice hockey)[edit]

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

No apparent sources to meet WP:GNG. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using his Elite Prospect's link, I believe he passes multiple criteria of NHOCKEY. He has played one game in the AHL, and 200 games in the WHL and ECHL. Also, he scored the most points and was the MVP in the CIS. These should cover criteria 2, 3, and 4. However, if these statistics don't cover NHOCKEY, I have an interview that can help flesh out the article and confirmation that he was MVP for the golden bears. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333: None of those meet NHOCKEY. Each criterion refers to the League Assessment found in the link at the top of NHOCKEY. #2 refers to top level amateur leagues in areas where there is/was no professional hockey (such as the Eastern Bloc) or are so old that sourcing for GNG would be near impossible, so the WHL and CIS do not qualify him here. #3 is 200 games the second level of the League Assessment, so it needs be 200 games in the AHL. He played ONE. #4 refers to the third tier on the League Assessment. The CIS has no inherent notability based on media coverage.

So based on this, to Keep he must meet WP:GNG with multiple secondary independent sources. Unfortunately, all sources I have found on were published by primary sources (as in from teams he played with or local media only). Your interview is published by his former team and is not secondary or independent. If there were other sources, the interview would be a good supplemental primary source, but as it stands he still fails GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Thanks for letting me know. I was using a different link for the leagues and misunderstood the criteria for NHOCKEY. In that case, I have a source from Canoe saying he was MVP for 2003-04, a news source saying he scored the first goal of the Salmon Kings existence. I also found some sources that I need to check: he held the WHL record for the fastest goal in a period, and was the MVP for U of Alberta in 2001-02. Hopefully this is a start to reach WP:GNG. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333: Unfortunately those are all appear to be routine sources and not considered sufficient for GNG. All of those are mostly just mentions of either him or the fact that he won an award, nothing specifically about him. Being mentioned as MVP is much different than an secondary article about why or what he did to be named MVP (such as this article for Mitch Marner). Remember, Wikipedia is not a stats site or a sports almanac, other pages do that job just fine. So such minor accomplishments such as "first goal the history of a short-lived team" and "fastest goal in a junior league game" are no more notable than "fastest goal in an outdoor game played in the rain" or any other random stat. (The outdoor-rain stat is a joke, but the point remains there exists hundreds of minor records that stat sites do keep track of and we do not.) Yosemiter (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet NHOCKEY and not enough sources to demostrate GNG. I am willing to give a little credit for the Canoe article mentioning that he was named MVP, but that still falls short of the GNG guideline of multple independent sources providing significant coverage. And the interview is not really independent since it published by a team he played for. Although I would be willing to give credit for an interview in a source such as The Hockey News or a major newspaper (which I think is more than some others would), this interview is not adequate for the purpose of contributing to a demonstration of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Interesting thing i did find is that he also was in stockcar racing, and a reference that he won at Western speedway in 2007 and 2008, and possibly came in 1st in points for those years for Island Stock Car Racing. However, I have to check if Island Stock Car is notable or not. I've been getting references looking at his stock car career, and the above that i've mentioned are not all of them, so more digging is required. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, doesn't meet the GNG, and certainly doesn't meet the stringent criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. Ravenswing 22:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Delphic (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Boardman[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced that the subject is independently notable. He has written songs for a notable band (Delphic) but notability is not inherited. The best sources are [25] and [26] but both are about Delphic and one is a local radio show, so not great for demonstrating notability. I suggest we redirect to Delphic. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Delphic (band) as per above. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet notability on their own. Onel5969 TT me 03:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The comments regarding WP:PROF are decisive. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 02:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pierangelo Metrangolo[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Does not meet WP:GNG - coverage found during searches is a mix of passing mentions and his own website & his own Institutions website. Article attempts to inherit notability from the events he has been involved in & the people he has worked with, but that's not enough to pass the GNG threshold. Opj75 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- text has been added to Ksenija Pavlovic and redirect created. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pavlovic Today[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale, or improvement. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Lot of hits on News, but all from this site itself. Onel5969 TT me 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG on external sources. I thought about nominating this one before.South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Pavlovic Today is a young and reputable publication and is in the White House Press Corps. Deutsche Welle is mentioning the publication and is enough of an extrenal in-depth source. The publication is listed on google news. Call for deletion seems like a suppression of free and independent media, the article can be expanded and improved, but its deletion is pure censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_16&oldid=1142618143"