Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky wicket[edit]

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

Just a WP:DICDEF and WP:EXAMPLEFARM. The sources are entirely primary, proving nothing that "this work uses the term", and not discussing the term at length. Tone is utterly informal and unencyclopedic ("where there is no option you can take which is necessarily a good one"). If there is an article potential here, then WP:TNT is required. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was a very poor article but I've started amending and expanding it today. Needs more referencing, but I think you can already see that it's far more than a dicdef and example farm. Perhaps think of it this way: the cricket phenomenon is far more complex, interesting and encyclopedic than the dicdef of how the term is used as a metaphor in everyday speech. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a dicdef, not an example farm. If the tone displeases, improve. No need for TNT. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. To be fair to the nominator, it was really really awful: ([1]). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes the version nominated was crap, but improvements are already being made. And it does pass WP:GNG as sources exist out there about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Tone' is not a valid deletion reason. And a simple WP:BEFORE search would have provided the nominator with the RS available. And prevented this sticky wicket :D — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be readily expandable and sourceable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thanks to Dweller and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for their work on it today. It has both specific and general meanings and is clearly notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good job fixing the problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and congrats to those that have improved the article. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the nominator for bringing the article to attention, and to those who fixed it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:40, 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. Sandstein 11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Cohn[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP with some advertorial overtones of an actress, which contains potentially valid claims of notability but isn't properly sourcing them. Practically right across the board the "references" here are to unacceptable sources like blogs, IMDb and her own primary source content about herself -- and the only two things that count as real reliable source coverage in real media are covering her solely in the context of being married, to someone notable enough that the coverage exists more because him than her, not in the context of anything that would give her passage of a notability criterion. I'm willing to withdraw this if the tone can be adjusted for WP:NPOV and the referencing can be improved, but Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which people get to keep promotionally-toned profiles just because they exist -- notability has to be supported by a considerably better class of referencing than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete second the nominator that the only adequate sources relate to her marriage, and they exist because her husband is such a notable figure. Nothing to show she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query how would i go around maintaining this page if there are limited interview sources regarding her voice work, even though She is quite active? Would links to film, series, and game cast credits assist at all? Thanks. - justkyledavid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justkyledavid (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film, series and game cast credits would not assist, no — and, for that matter, neither would "interview" sources. A person gets over our inclusion criteria for actors by being the subject of reliable source coverage — interviews can be sparingly used for some supplementary confirmation of stray facts after enough of the expected quality of sourcing is present to get her over WP:GNG, but they cannot be the GNG in and of themselves because they represent the subject talking about herself rather than third parties objectively assessing her impact and notability. Being "quite active" is not an automatic inclusion freebie for an actress in and of itself — if the article can't be referenced properly, she's not exempted from having to pass GNG just because she's a working performer who's had roles. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 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) 01:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwar Javaid[edit]

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

No independent evidence (on Google search) of notability, only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had a search earlier, and found absolutely nothing to show notability either. Mabalu (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. South Nashua (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.No references.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. No sourcing is evident for his priority claim, even if it could also pass WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence at all of notability. OtterAM (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linkat[edit]

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

Non-notable software article, a Google search mainly returns articles about another topic [2] - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Article doesn't clearly explain why this is notable. What makes it different from its opensuse base? A lot of organisations will modify a base OS (a Linux distribution or Windows or so on) to create a "base image" for deployment in their organisation, with organisation-specific customisations and configurations – how is this any diferent than that, with the organisation being the school system of Catalonia? Also, not listed on LWN Distributions List, which while not decisive, is in my view useful as an approximate indicator of Linux distribution notability. On the other hand, I did find one English language reliable source which does mention it, Tj Plomp (2009), Cross-national Information and Communication Technology Policies and Practices in Education, IAP, p. 142, ISBN 978-1-60752-044-3. I've also seen some Spanish language sources discuss this, which could be RS too, but I don't feel so confident in judging the reliability of Spanish language sources. I'd supporting merging this to an article on the Catalonia's department of education, but we don't seem to have such an article. Catalan Wikipedia does–ca:Departament d'Ensenyament de la Generalitat de Catalunya, but English Wikipedia has no direct equivalent–although the English equivalent article is List of Ministers of Education of Catalonia, which is not quite the same thing. So, maybe if we created an English article about the Department (as opposed to a list of the Ministers in charge of it), we could merge this stuff in that article. But, I can't really !vote merge when the merge target doesn't exist yet. SJK (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 21:01, 28 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) 01:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarai Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable Youtuber. Sources found during a WP:BEFORE search are a mix of passing mentions and advertorial-style "look at this new make-I've been sponsored to wear" promo pieces. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and this requirement simply isn't met - passing mentions do not add up to significant coverage and advertorial-promo pieces are not independent. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Youtuber lacking significant independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 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) 01:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalaire Adventures[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Also quite PROMO John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet basic notability standards. Nothing except company website, press releases, camp directories, etc.
Delete - Spam. Only one of the external links is external. Unlikely this piece can be brought up to snuff. South Nashua (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:19, 28 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) 01:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy Banks[edit]

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

Porn star article was previously deleted with false claims of notability. It's back, this time with bogus citations for all the substantial content. This could be a G4, except it contains new falsehoods. Again no verifiable claim of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Few sources on Google News[3], Not amazing but notability is certainly there, I'd imagine there's more elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the GNews hits in your link are pictorials or passing mentions. One non-trivial hit appears to be a blog. Leaving one article in an online magazine of unknown quality. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the gng as stands and the sourcing proposed by Davey isn't enough to cut the mustard. The amount of self-promotion going on here makes me view claims of notability through a stricter eye than normal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -insufficient indicia of notability. . Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability. No independent reliable sourcing; all the non-database references appear to be spurious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 28 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) 01:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Coritsidis[edit]

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

I find nearly only concert listings online, and no substantial coverage meeting WP:GNG, nor anything meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The sources given in the article are all affiliated. I also find very little mention of "Opus 1 Foundation". A Google search for "Samuel K. Friedman Prize" yields only this article and his bio on the Multiple Sclerosis website, so it isn't a major award. Largoplazo (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates he meets any of our notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 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 delete. WP:IAR. I have zero tolerance for this tactic. Will do the necessary moves. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Phone Signal Booster[edit]

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

The references seem to be a mostly/all fake. None of the 8 references are available online. In particular:

Reference 3 is just a link to a journalism school.
The Saturday Paper is used as reference 5, but the reference says it was the 5 January 2014 edition; the paper began publishing on March 2014 (see our article, and the reference used that confirms the March 2014 launch [4]).
Tele-Tech & Electronic Industries Journal is used as reference, but it appears this hasn't been published since 1956 [5].
The New York Times article in reference 7 doesn't appear to exist (I'm assuming the title in the reference is a typo, but there are no similarly titled articles); Google shows many, many NYT articles on this subject, but nothing with this date or this author
It appears that no such book as reference 8 exists; claims to be published by Houghton Mifflin, but doesn't show up in their web site [6]. Plus, does that really look like a legit book title to you?

In addition to questionable references:

The article was created by an SPA who moved an existing page and overwrote the content, rather than create a new page; this is a tactic done to avoid new page patrollers.
Promotional in tone.

I'm sorely tempted to just delete this as dishonestly created spam, but the article has been here since 2015 (!) so I guess another week can't hurt. Note to closing admin: if this is a "delete", we should probably remove content, delete Mayawaits' contribs, and move it back to Witt equivalence; there's some history there to preserve that was lost in the page move. And probably a futile block of long-abandoned User:Mayawaits for spamming. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke and pave into a redirect to cellular repeater. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:17, 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 redirect to WrestleMania . (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania 34[edit]

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

This seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. It is an article about a PPV a year away, and the article does not currently have any sources that discuss it at length, and a google search just seems to reveal speculation about a possible match. I claim that until WWE starts announcing matches, which will probably start with the Royal Rumble next January, this article should be a redirect to Wrestlemania, as the only sourced information will be trivial information about the date and location of the event, and speculation.

This article has also been the subject of various editors adding speculation and vandalism, which almost by definition are the only edits we can have until much nearer the event. Silverfish (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Silverfish (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It shouldn't have been created yet and having to fight the vandals on it almost every hour adding fake info is for the birds. The event is over a year away and there is nothing to put for it yet except it's location. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be redirected to the main WrestleMania article until at least after this year's Mania. In the past we discussed not creating WrestleMania articles until after the Royal Rumble, when they actually start building to it. Nothing came of it at the time but I agree with Silverfish that this article shouldn't be created until then. In past years we left useless stubs in place for a year and they had to be semi-protected the entire time to avoid speculation and vandalism. That's pretty much all these stubs attract. The little bit we do know about the event is already at WrestleMania so a redirect is sufficient.LM2000 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WrestleMania as above 86.3.174.49 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WrestleMania and also protect the redirect to prevent vandalism. 101.182.124.191 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WrestleMania. WP:TOOSOON. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon for this article --Bennyaha (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WrestleMania as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Dane ^talk 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WrestleMania for now. There's no substantive information about event (confirmed matches, buildup, etc). Nickag989^talk 11:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:HAMMER - nothing really important has been confirmed. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. Nikki♥311 02:50, 27 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) 01:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mailai Sapthaswarangal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only ref is its own website, and the Gbooks and Gnews searches threw up nothing.
The previous AFD in 2009 considered these concerns, but one editor wondered if there were non-English-language sources, but didn't know how to search for them. I don't understand why the previous AFD was closed as "no consensus", but more than 7 years later, the article is unimproved. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. After all this time still no third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:24, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Scott Britton[edit]

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

He may be worthy of note for his academic work, but I don't see that he meets the notability guidelines. None of the sources given in the article is an independent reliable source with substantial coverage. As for WP:NACADEMIC, three of his dictionaries have two or three citations each at Google Scholar, though in the case of one of them, all three citations were by one person; and I don't see any indication that he meets any of the other criteria for academics. Largoplazo (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of in-depth sources needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The books the subject has authored/translated don't seem to be notable enough. No evidence that this article meets WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Subject's books are, indeed, notable, particularly the two titles that are firsts in the field—The Zapotec dictionary, and the translation title. With regards to the information from the original nominator for deletion, it should be reiterated that the subject's works have been the subject of scholarly reference in numerous instances. Further, the subject is a verifiable professional member of the PEN American Center, a prestigious literary organization with strict merit-based membership protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.97.135 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — 108.51.97.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Clarification: You aren't reiterating what I said. I said I found few citations. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Point taken, though, you're quite right, I wasn't reiterating what you said, but emphasizing the existence of the citations. And, our individual opinions as to what constitutes a few must be what all opinions are, subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.97.135 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding PEN America membership: "PEN welcomes to its membership all literary writers and those belonging to the larger literary community. Writers should have one book published; playwrights and screenwriters: one work produced in a professional setting; others should have achieved recognition in the literary field. Nominations are not necessary. While admission is at the discretion of the Membership Committee, PEN aims for inclusion, recognizing that a growing and vibrant membership strengthens and informs all of its efforts on behalf of writers and their readers."[7] Even if all opinions are subjective, this is substantially less stringent that what "strict membership protocols" connotes to me. The standards today are only slightly looser than they were before June 2011: "Prior to a unanimous vote by PEN’s Board of Trustees on June 15, most authors were required to have published two books to join PEN. PEN’s by-laws have now been amended to allow writers to apply for membership after the publication of their first book. Playwrights and screenwriters may join after producing one work in a professional setting." Largoplazo (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability requirements and does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC. -- Dane ^talk 02:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough citations for this field to show passing of Academic criteria 1. PEN has too losse membership guidelines to be considered a limited membership group for the purposes of that academic notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat shows his dictionaries and phrasebooks have only double-digit holdings. Not really notable according to our conventional standards. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:26, 28 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) 01:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaki Ōsawa[edit]

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

Barely notable, not many starring roles or anything to write a biography about. Angel Tales - neko no tamami (cat) - supporting, large ensemble; Kirara (manga) OVA - Kirara Imai - title character; Miami Guns - Nagisa Tojo - supporting; Musumet - Midori - main but not a notable title; Street Fighter Alpha OVA - Sakura - supporting; Negima at Chao Lingshen - supporting (minor classmate) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, coverage in either Japanese or English is sorely lacking. I'm trying to be more lenient here given how it appears she was mainly active in the late 90's to early 00's, a time when online coverage of anime was still not as developed as it is today. However, I just can't find any sign that she was notable even then, given that her only main role is as the title character of an obscure OVA. Had Kirara been a more well-known or popular OVA, I would have suggested a redirect there, but as it stands, redirecting doesn't appear to be viable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing establishing notability even after a Google search. -- Dane ^talk 02:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:27, 28 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 through this debate, it's apparent to me that things are pretty split, and there's certainly no consensus at the moment. I don't feel that relisting would do anything to clear things up, so I'm closing it at this time. Given the WP:RECENTISM calls I feel that maybe this subject needs time before a long-term judgement can be made. KaisaL (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty woman[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIC. The article contains some original research. For instance, the references used to prove that the phrase has influenced memes are just passing mentions. A claim about "worldwide news" is outright false, and nothing in the cited source supports the claim. I do not believe there is significant enough coverage to satisfy GNG, as quantity of sources does not imply quality. At least some in-depth coverage should exist to prove notability. I do not see any reason to keep this as a standalone article. Wikipedia is not a phrase book.

Note: I tried to PROD this, but it was removed by @Mark viking because "given all the mainstream sources referenced, non-notability looks controversial and would need a discussion". Ceosad (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Tough. The phrase has not been defined anywhere, but it has gained some traction. But sources like this suggested the topic gained enough coverage to be notable, as a political slogan/phrase. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above that this is a tough call. Ultimately, while this phrase has attracted some media coverage, not everything that is newsworthy is also worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Will this phrase have any lasting significance? It certainly seems not. Wikipedia has been hit by endless numbers of trivial articles about US politics during and after the most recent presidential election. AusLondonder (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Not only do we have sources like "How 'Nasty Woman' Became A Viral Call For Solidarity" (The Huffington Post), but we have the many pop culture references, too. Donald's original comment ("Trump calls Clinton 'a nasty woman'", CNN), reactionary coverage ("Sorry, Donald: 'Nasty' Has Long Been a Feminist Rallying Cry", The Atlantic), Ashley Judd's poem ("Tenn. teen wrote Ashley Judd's 'Nasty Woman' poem", USA Today, "Women's March: Ashley Judd recites Nasty Woman poem", Entertainment Weekly), Katy Perry's t-shit (yes, really), etc. Yes, I realize a t-shirt is trivial, but my point is there's more to "nasty woman" than just being a political phrase. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Note: There may be some additional content and sourcing to consider at Draft:Nasty woman. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the content of this article should be merged into the draft (and this article deleted to make way). Pet peev: editors blowing off (or anything less than looking for) the big notice at the top when creating a page if there's a draft by the same name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: To be fair, I don't think big notices always notify editors attempting to create new articles that similarly-titled drafts exist, and we can't expect everyone to know about the draft space, let alone search for entries before creating every new article. Also, the live "Nasty woman" article was originally created as "Nasty woman meme", then moved (by me, actually), so this may have also contributed to the duplicate creations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I agree with the first part of this. But I don't want to go off on a tangent. Instead, I think I see a good subject for an essay that doesn't yet seem to be covered... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate article: I think that even if there is enough material to establish notability, I can't see it generating enough material for much more than a stub. Merging it to an appropriate article and redirecting the term would allow some appropriate coverage, while leaving scope to expand it into a full article if sufficient coverage warrants it further down the line. I'm not sure what the article would be - perhaps the article on the United States presidential debates, 2016, but I'm not sure if it would outweigh its prominence in the debate (the notability of the term seems to be as much about the backlash and its reclamation as Trump's utterance in the first place). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know, I was wondering about the appropriateness of creating an article specifically about the third and final presidential debate, which received a lot of coverage and could also incorporate content related to the "You're the puppet" comment made by Trump. See also: Draft:You're the puppet. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, my suggestion would be to simply add that to United_States_presidential_debates,_2016#Third_presidential_debate_.28University_of_Nevada.2C_Las_Vegas.29. Right now, there's no mention of it at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to be sufficient coverage in sources and significant social discourse related to the phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's generated coverage in the months after Trump uttered it during the debate, seemingly making it a notable rallying cry.LM2000 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has entered the vernacular, and is very well sourced. Notability is established by terrific sources and wide recognition of the phrase.198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In wide use, sources are there for WP:GNG and satisfies any questions about WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOT. freshacconci (✉) 01:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just did a Google News search on "nasty woman", and found and added references to five articles (from three different countries) published in the last two weeks. It's a notable phrase of lasting value to the encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was a major theme in the 2016 election and became a meme. Article needs work, but more than notable, easily passes GNG (and FFS, we kept Resting bitch face. Montanabw^(talk) 02:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NEO, WP:GNG, and WP:RECENTISM. TheDracologist (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The term is not new, so WP:NEO and WP:RECENTISM does not apply. It's written about in this 1994 journal on JSTOR (if you sign up you can read it on your virtual JSTOR bookshelf), in this 2006 journal (subscription required), it is discussed in relation to The Color Purple where Shug is described as "nasty woman" who has outsider status in the community (p. 85-86 in this 2009 book), another article about Toni Morrison written in 2004, it is used to describe women who will not "take back" their husbands in this 1972 Journal, an entire 2003 book, The University of San Francisco Law Review has a 2017 article titled "Nasty Women and the Rule of Law." The term has clearly been used to describe a "certain type" women in the past and it received a strong push from Trump's use of it in the debate. The references in the article are strong, and it looks like the "original research" tag should be removed, since all statements are cited. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a political phrase used on an ongoing basis. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT. 188.238.17.66 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and examples of usage demonstrate that the term as used in the article is not a definition, per WP:NOTDICT: "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." This term is a concept that the phrase now denotes for a number of clear uses beyond the etymology of the individual words. freshacconci (✉) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is still a neologism. See WP:NEO that is part of the same policy. The article is just a bad stub, so saying that it is not written like a definition does not mean much... WP:RECENTISM probably applies here too. Ceosad (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ceosad, it is NOT a case of WP:NEO. See my argument with references above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that those references use the phrase in the same context as Trump did. Claiming that they do would be original research. I agree with Lemongirl942 about that. Ceosad (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that WP:NEO is part of the same policy and that it reads in the first line: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That is no longer the case: there are multiple sources showing wide usage and there is no evidence that this article was created to increase usage of the term but rather to provide an article about a legitimate cultural term in wide use. As for recentism, that essay is not policy, nor a guideline. Nevertheless, it still does not apply: "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view..." No evidence of that, and if the article as it stands does not aim toward a long-term historical view, that is an issue for editing and expansion, not deleting, as there are demonstrably enough solid sources to accomplish that. freshacconci (✉) 16:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect somewhere and add content there) This reminds me of "Fuck her right in the pussy" which was closed as a redirect (which remained redirected, even after a deletion review).

Memes/internet pehenomenon needs to pass WP:EVENT and I don't see WP:PERSISTENT and WP:LASTING coverage about this.
The ccoverage presented in the AFD prior to Trump's use is not useful here. There is no proof that any previous usage of "nasty woman" was in the same context as Trump's. Appropriating previous usage into this phenomenon is WP:OR.
Keeping this as a standalone article is another good example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Apparently every minute thing about the US Presidential election is notable for a standalone article.

I can get behind merging this content into an appropriate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being "nasty woman' has received a lot more coverage and use in popular culture. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've seen more lasting media coverage for "Nasty woman" than for "Nevertheless, she persisted." The latter has its own article which has not been sent to AfD (as of this time). Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hasn't really entered mainstream language, contrary to similar "nasty" political expressions such as Basket of deplorables or Binders full of women. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that because those expressions are more specific — that is, they are recent metaphors, essentially coined by the speaker with whom they are associated, as opposed to "nasty woman", which is fairly generic slur — that they would flag up in the political lexicon because of that clear association. In the case of "nasty woman", though, it is that Trump used such a phrase in a Presidential debate that is the significant issue, and which should be covered, hence my suggestion for its inclusion in a relevant article if insufficient material for an article (but enough to establish notability) can be brought together at this point.

Meme-spinning and bandwagonning aside, the issue at hand is how notable it is for one candidate to use such a phrase. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a common expression, which means that a brief mention of Trump's use in the debate page is all we shall ever need. — JFG ^talk 22:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting and elaborating my iVote, I continue to think that we need to delete this article because it is not so much a 2-word neologism (as described in the article and by most of the 'keep" iVotes above,) as it is two very common English words that, even in justaposition, have at least the meanings 1.) a woman who is willing to get down and dirty, 2.) a political pejorative for a self-confident female, 3.) a woman who is enjoys engaging in sex - in this sense it used to be a pejorative, 4.) a woman who is an unpleasant person. Even Merriam Webster is having trouble keeping up with the many and nuanced uses of this pair of words.[8]. Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's an encyclopedia, and should include entries for notable topics, like this one. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 28 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) 01:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Tower of Babel[edit]

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

This proposed fantasy building lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. A bibliography in the article lists two books. The first book is by the academic who proposed this building so it is not independent. The second book provides no specific page number but is a link to a search within Google Books which doesn't show any Tokyo Tower of Babel so I have no idea why this book is listed. Whpq (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is small difference between this article and articles like X-Seed 4000 and Ultimate Tower which are also fantasy buildings without independent reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with the article and it has better quallity than the most of Wikipedia articles. And secondly, this is the tallest buildings EVER envisioned in human history, so the articles is definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonium (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia something that is not notable doesn't exist. Every knowledge is important, and your attitude to the new articles is in conflict with the fundamental vision of all Wikimedia Projects:

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonium (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was actually already deleted through AfD back in 2015 (an admin might want to add the earlier discussion to this - you can find a link to it on the article's talk page). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. The WP:OSE argument in this case is quite weak. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFD is automatically linked in in the AFD box (upper right on my browser). -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lack of independent reliable sources doesn't means that the article should be deleted--Sheldonium (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Our inclusion guidelines says otherwise. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't read the article nor WP:GNG, especially see the sources on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.161.40 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 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) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whales & This Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND as far as I can tell. Telaneo (User talk page) 19:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the band's coverage seems to come from local sources (especially the trollheimsporten.no site) and I see no evidence at http://norwegiancharts.com/ that any of the band's releases have charted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:47, 27 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) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jour 395[edit]

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

Appears to be a course catalog listing. Perhaps this was an attempt to create a course page for Wikipedia:Education program? Didn't seem to fit any of the speedy deletion criteria, but is not notable. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you could probably make an arguement for G11 but regardless, there's no substantive content here. —Non-Dropframe _talk 18:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G2 probably applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:28, 28 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 Miss Estonia#Titleholders. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Miss Estonia. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoria Azovskaja[edit]

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

Miss Universe 2007 is Riyo Mori Miss Universe 2007]. I suggest to delete this page as per WP:A7 Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Estonia. I initially tagged the page as a BLP Prod, since there are no sources in the article. While there's a plausible claim of notability in winning a national beauty pageant, if the page cannot be improved, or sourced a redirect to the main pageant wouldn't be a bad resolution. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Estonia§ Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned. As indicated by North America 1000 in some other AfDs: a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Source searches are demonstrating this to be a WP:BLP1E situation, in terms of coverage in reliable sources.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as both Rick and Richie propose: the fact that this person has no page on the Estonian Wikipedia is saying something about her notability. Since a deletion would damage the Miss Universe 2007-infobox, a redirect is the most elegant solution. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 29 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 per WP:SNOW. Filming has yet to commence and there is no coverage to establish notability or even to confirm the performers acting in the short. When this releases and gains the coverage necessary to pass WP:NFILM (which is difficult for short films to gain) this could probably be recreated, but not before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend that WP:COI accounts wanting to create the page should go through WP:AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shemira (The Guarding)[edit]

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

Unremarkable short film. Unable to find any reliable sources. —Non-Dropframe _talk 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I proposed it for deletion at the exact same time as you started the AfD :-) Fram (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and looks to have WP:SELFPROMOTION problems as well. Might of been speedied as well but I was too slow on tagging the article - too slow on a speedy get it - heehee. MarnetteD|Talk 17:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to close this early. There's no coverage out there about this short at all, not even to confirm that it will star John Rhys-Davies - which doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere at all. It also doesn't help that the production company section is written in a fairly promotional style, to the point where it kind of reads like it was taken from somewhere else, meaning that it could be WP:COPYVIO. This doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance of surviving even if we left it for a full week, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 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) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lees[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

relisting as last nomination in jan attracted no votes or comments Non notable actor (fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for entertainers and WP:GNG). Poorly referenced, falls considerably short of WP:RS standards. Created and majorly contributed to by COI/SPA(s). Identical issue with related article (subject's twin Christian Lees) which is also being AfD'd here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonah_Lees_(2nd_nomination) Rayman60 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actor lacking significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Lees[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

relisting as last nomination in jan attracted no votes or comments Non notable actor (fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for entertainers and WP:GNG). Poorly referenced, falls considerably short of WP:RS standards. Created and majorly contributed to by COI/SPA(s). Identical issue with related article (subject's twin Christian Lees) which is also being AfD'd here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Lees_(2nd_nomination) Rayman60 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 27 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) 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Ragsdale[edit]

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

A claim of notability here but imo just another pushy nudbnik. Motivational speakers indeed. Ther motivate me to AfD their biogs or leave the room sharpis TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable, and very popular in Atlanta. I think we should keep him Huroto (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim to the NYT Bestseller could not be verified. It's not on the page specified, and neither the book nor the author is in the NYT index. There's nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 28 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 deleted per A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solace Law Solicitors[edit]

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

Both refs here are to trivial mentions: the first is to a page showing that the company is registered, and the second is to a listing with telephone number, address, etc. The article was written by a WP:SPA with no other edit history and probably a undisclosed conflict of interest. KDS4444 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): A WP:SPA article on a new company, with no more than listing the run-of-the-mill services which it provides. No notability claimed or found. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tegfan Davies[edit]

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

I am sure he was a very nice person, but having been a minister for 50 years does not by itself qualify a person as notable. The only reference provided is to a directory/ dictionary (?) entry that reads like it is likely an obituary. A google search for more sources turns up 19 results, most of which mention him as a "long-serving minister of Ammanford's Christian Temple", but say little or nothing more about him. Am not seeing enough here to substantiate a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dictionary entry means he passes WP:ANYBIO, and this 2012 article indicates his enduring historical significance. In any case, WP:GNG is passed right there. Plus there's an OBE thrown in for good measure. St Anselm (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, doesn't an entry in a national anthology of biography satisfy ANYBIO? Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response An entry in a national anthology indicates a likelihood of notability— no single criterion mentioned in WP:ANYBIO or anywhere else is by itself meant to be a free pass: we need to look at the overall picture, and to me, it is still inadequate here. The article in the South Wales Guardian may be fine for corroborating the subject's notability once that has been established by genuine national sources, but because of its local nature, it can't be used to substantiate that notability claim itself (never mind that its content as cited here is mostly a reprint of the Guardian's own obituary on the man from 1968, as stated in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, whose content derives from the same article, and that only the entry in the Dictionary has apparently had a named author). The Dictionary of Welsh Biography Down to 1940 contains over 4,300 entries, making it appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Also the Dictionary of National Biography appears to be a comprehensive British publication, whereas the Welsh version is much more local— the Wikipedia article on the former doesn't even mention the latter as one of its sources. I get the impression (though I am unfamiliar with the facts here) that there was a British version that presumed to cover all "British" notables, and then some local British groups such as the Welsh who found this unsatisfactory produced their own local versions of the same book in which they included only local ethnic notables (i.e., the Welsh). In any case, the content of all of the extant materials on this person appear to come from the same OBITUARY publication in the South Guardian in 1968, and such sources are usually considered WP:ROUTINE news coverage and inadequate for establishing actual notability. KDS4444 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of ANYBIO, ROUTINE, MEMORIAL, and RS doesn't seem to match yours. Myself, I don't see anything in ROUTINE or MEMORIAL that says that obituaries, especially non-paid ones, should not be used to establish notability. As for ANYBIO, I think that satisfying that or any subject-specific notability guideline indicates, as you say, likihood of satisfying GNG. To me, that indicates that a more extensive search should be made before concluding a subject is not-notable. In this case, that would mean having access to Welsh sources and, depending on the source, the ability to interpret them and their reliability. Since you didn't explain how you addressed this issue, I wanted to point out that ANYBIO may be satisfied, and I was curious what you did to be sure that GNG wasn't met. A google search seems a bit brief given such an indication of a likelihood of notability. As for RS, I don't think there is anything in the notability guidelines or subject-specific guidelines that precludes using a local source to establish notability, assuming that local source is reliable. And there is nothing in RS that precludes local sources. And it seems to me that the South Wales Guardian is a reliable source, especially for issues pertaining to Ammanford. In any case, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my !vote. Your reply does make me feel that your nomination is more plausible than I felt when reading your initial nomination. In any case, I still !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy, A local newspaper is presumed ot be a reliable source, but while it does contribute to meeting notability standards, any topic that can only be sourced to local newspapers is highly unlikely to pass notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that if a subject can only be sourced to local newspapers, current practice is highly predisposed against the topic, but that the guidelines and policies do not forbid an article on that subject. I think predisposal against locally sourced subjects at AfD sometimes overreaches, especially because the concept of local changes over time and, in my opinion, has drastically changed recently (I think today there is more national coverage in online news sources of what might once have been local stories). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. In this case, the Cardiff-based Western Mail (Wales) is regional/local, but the National Library of Wales is a gold-standard source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he has an entry in the dictionary, I still fail to see what makes him more notable than any other minister. We do not list people on the basis of simply having an OBE, or any other common award. Further, as all the information seems to have been traced back to a single source, it does not have multiple reliable secondary sources. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. The biography lists other sources: Blwyddiadur yr Annibynwyr Cymraeg, Lleisiau ddoe a heddiw, etc. St Anselm (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Killer Moff has obviously not read the sources. He conspiculouly has not read the article from the South Wales Guardian linked by St. Anselm above. And certainly does not understand the sourcing and standards used in entries in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography Down to 1940. User:Smmurphy's argument is valid, and sort of makes the rest of the sources mere icing on the cake. But I do wish editors would - at a minimum - look at sources already present before iVoting and before bringing articles to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm at work and don't have access to a lot of the sources owing to firewalls. I was taking KDS4444 at their word. However, my point still stands that I don't see anything in the article that suggests a specific notability!. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Killer Moff Can you please encounter WP:ANYBIO "3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." Since subject is listed in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography - National Library of Wales. In addition to other sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I have read that, including the section where it says that merely meeting these criteria is not a guarantee of notability. I'm not denying that he has a bio. I'm asking what he's done that makes him notable. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some substantive discussion of his career in old newspaper articles, added some of it to article. There is enough notability here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to withdraw my nomination in light of having confirmed his receipt of an Order of the British Empire in 1965 (have added ref to same to article). Between this AND his appearance in the aforementioned Dictionary, I believe we now have a case for notability, however thin. Given that there has been at least one detete vote, this discussion must now run its course, but with the OBE, I am pretty certain we are going to end up with a keep outcome at this point. Would have been nice if the original author of the piece had included info like this from the beginning— it is mentioned in his obituaries, though it doesn't turn up with any prominence in Google searches. KDS4444 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I should point out that it was mentioned (but not cited) in the version of the article you nominated for deletion. St Anselm (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was also given there as "the O.B.E.", unlinked, as if I should have known what it meant. Which is more than a little presumptuous, no? Instead, I replaced it with a link to the actual award, and found a viable citation. You are welcome! KDS4444 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes - I suspect just about everyone in the UK would know what an OBE is. St Anselm (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you Brits! (also, no one in the US would guess what the abbreviation OBE means... We might choose "Overcome by events"! KDS4444 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Reopened this as I overlooked the delete vote disqualifying a withdrawal. -- Dane ^talk 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = an OBE and National bio listing. Not snowing, but the rain is freezing. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 26 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) 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Uehara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First ref is to a page of stats (blood type, age, etc.) and contains no discussion of the article's subject; 2nd ref is another profile page; 3rd appears to be a legitimate interview, but I am not able to assess the quality of the source (if this is an industry-sponsored interview, then its independence may be in doubt); 4th does not appear to mention the subject anywhere; 5th contains only a trivial mention of the subject as a member of the cast of a theatrical performance; 6th is another cast listing with no discussion; 7th appears to be an announcement about a CD release— the subject's name appears in the headline, but nowhere in the text. The Japanese article is nearly an exact copy of the English one, with the same seven references; the Tagalog article has no content (it's a stub); the Chinese article has no references at all though its content appears to be a duplication of the Japanese article. A Google search turns up Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn. There may be reliable sources in Japanese, but I am not competent to search for these. The current list of references doesn't look like enough to establish notability, however, and I was not able to identify references that would do the job. KDS4444 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 27 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) 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Build[edit]

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

Contested endorsed WP:PROD. The game fails WP:GNG with no~~t enough~~ reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. ~~I see 1 preview [9] from an RS.~~ Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. The author appears to be WP:SPA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreleased game. I am not finding significant third-party coverage there; even the one item the nominator points to appears not to be this game, but a different, already-released game that happens to have the words Social and Build next to each other in the URL. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely TOOSOON here, and there's no appropriate redirect target. Agree with above that there is an apparent lack of any serious third-party coverage of the game at this time. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the nomination, Nat, and Masem. I can't see any evidence of meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may eventually be good sourcing for this, such as after the game is released, but for now it is sorely lacking.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:TOOSOON.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 28 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) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whydezire[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:E=N. Downgraded from CSD because it has some views, but does not appear inherently notable as per WP:WEB just yet. In particular, "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Unable to find verifiable secondary sources beyond author's YT account. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy would have been fine as there's no claim of notability made by the article. Article creator is also the person himself judging by the username so it could've been deleted as purely promotional as well. ValarianB (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally, I'd have stuck with the A7 but I can definitely respect the nominator's desire/willingness to put it to the wider community. But this is far WP:TOOSOON and is an easy delete. —Non-Dropframe _talk 17:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This looks like a clear A7 to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - non-notable youtuber.Fails WP:GNGCAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Antoniadou[edit]

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

An emerging academic that does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources from a cursory search. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Madame Figaro
Huffington Post
Neos Kosmos
Nature.com
Greek Reporter (short article)

Keep per NA1000. There is sufficient indicia of notability. She passes GNG combining academics and political work. Montanabw^(talk) 08:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is the nominator trying to delete her article based on secondary academic criteria? If she passes GNG, she is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The above sources show she passes GNG. In addition, she is also a Laureate of the Cartier Women's Initiative Awards for her work in transplants [10]. She is also covered in the Independent and was on the Forbes 30 under 30 list Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sweet kate (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ms. Antoniadou is definitely not an accomplished academic as she has no major publications (counted ~ 50 citations through Google scholar, also no scholar profile). She is also not an accomplished enterpreneur. Her company "Transplants Without Donors" is unclear if it ever existed. The only website I could find is this [11], which leads to a dead page here [12]. No news or products of the company exist elsewhere on the web. She also seems to have switched to a political career. The majority of awards gathered by Ms. Antoniadou, which are cited by the wiki article, are related to being a woman start-up enterpreneur, which was evidently short-lived and unimportant. These are not awards about contributions to science or business. Magicheader (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily for reasons cited by Megalibrarygirl. I do not consider a career change to be relevant to the deletion proposal; if she met GNG in the past for her previous endeavours, she does not lose notability. Agent 86 (talk) 19:24, 10 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} 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG, but it's close. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. .The basic principle here is the policy NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The guideline WP:N is an explanation of it, showing the criteria we usually use. It makes no claims to be the criteria we always use. It's the policy that mattes. And even the GNG says that meeting it is a presumption of notability , not proof of it. This is a good example of why that wording matters: The awards are meaningless unless they represent some actual accomplishment. they don't.UsingGNG fort someone who has never actually done anything notable is an absurd misuse of the criterion. Any number of citations about nothing still equals nothing. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm seeing a lot of editorial judgment in this discussion. Who is in charge of deciding which awards "mean something", or are "actual accomplishments" and are therefore notable? Doesn't the fact that an award was granted, and received significant coverage in reliable sources mean more than some editors' judgment that it was somehow unworthy? Isn't that judgment original research rather than an objective measure of notability? Are we to give more importance to an editor's determination of importance rather than objective measures? This discussion is full of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, personal point of view arguments.Jacona (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, poor writing is not a reason to delete. Her technology was invented in 2009 and resulted in a successful transplant in 2013. GNG does not require that she be limited to some narrow definition of academic, it requires that she has been covered in RS over time. We don't define whether she is notable. Sources confirm whether she is noted. Forbes 30 under 30, Cartier Laureate, London Technology Awards confirm she meets GNG. [13], [14], [15]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -requesting relist There is more to here than meets the eye and I have sorted it into the medicine lit for editors to have a look. I had a look at the article history and it seems there have been repeated attempts to remove certain information. I am not sure what happened, but it would be interesting to dig deeper. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into why this removal was made. There is definitely something weird going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possibly the information was removed because it was a scientifically trivial single case report. Even if the BBC covers a minor accomplishment, it doesn't make it notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the issue here? She has numerous in depth news mentions, and was on the Forbes 30 under 30 list. There is zero doubt that basic notability exists, based on even the most cursory of searches. Statements above to the effect that "the awards are meaningless" advocate that editors should be (re)asessing the validity of awards given by notable institutions. Such a practice is similar to original reserch, in that is suggests Wikipedians can assess an award recipient better than the actual award-granting orgnanization. We are not here for that. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep based on WP:GNG, but also a comment. Every delete vote seem to be WP:Wikilawyering based on NPOV. If I am ever told that I need an organ transplant, and I am searching WP for background and hope- this will be a very valuable article. WP is more not less! ClemRutter (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of !vote is exactly why this article was ... well, toxic in the form it took when all these !keep votes were made. We are many years away from regular use of artificial organs. Many. Medicine is not like the tech industry and hype doesn't change the world in medicine - see Theranos. See also Talk:Eleni_Antoniadou#Moved_here. So if you are in actual medical trouble, there was nothing but rabbit holes here for you. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter,you do realize she has no plans to acquire a PhD or become a physician? You do realize there is nothing in the article, or in any of the references, about actual organ transplants? DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Meets the notability guidelines and doesn't have a valid reason for deletion. -- Dane ^talk 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (note - this is a second !vote - see above. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
delete She has not actually done much science or business, and this article was full of pretty slick promotional content. She is kind of pursing the celebrity scientist thing; appears to be famous for ...winning awards, which are generally not for actually scientific achievement but are more "science glamor" like the Cartier award. I would say WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on claims I realised that there have been multiple attempts to remove the information about the artificial trachea or either whitewash it. Clearly, somebody with a conflict of interest was removing it. On looking into this, I realised that there is a link with the Paolo Macchiarini case.

From thisIn 2011, she directly contributed to research that enabled the world’s first successful completely artificial organ transplant, helping to craft an artificial trachea for a 36-year-old late-stage cancer patient. This is obviously the same case in this article
There is another source (though a primary source) which mentions the patient by name. See this While in the medical school of the University College of London, I worked with my classmate Claire Crowley for Prof. Alexander Seifalian on the development of a tissue engineered trachea that was mimicking the properties of its real counterpart. This graduate project was the winner of the Translation to Clinic and to Commercialization of Nanotechnology Products Competition in UCL and was shortly after implanted into a 36 year old patient, Andemariam Teklesenbet
She worked with Prof. Alexander Seifalian. See University College London is now investigating its links with the work of Paolo Macchiarini, whose windpipe transplants led to a surgical scandal. Alexander Seifalian, a former UCL professor of biomaterials, created the first synthetic trachea to be transplanted into a patient. The 36-year old Eritrean man, Andemariam Beyene, had been suffering from advanced tracheal cancer and died two-and-a-half years after the transplant. Seifalian was dismissed from UCL in July, after a tribunal in an unrelated case found that he had dishonestly obtained £24,000 from an overseas student.

If the article is kept, it should at least clarify this link, rather than simply saying her work was used in the "first successful artificial organ transplant". (That claim itself btw, need to be checked). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lemongirl942 - i had already made this series of edits and left corresponding notes on the talk page, before you made your remarks above. There was nothing in the article saying that her work was involved in the "first successful artificial organ transplant" so I don't understand why you wrote that. As I noted on the Talk page, I found the content and sourcing that were used to connect her work to the transplants done by Macchiarini to be both flimsy and promotional and self-destructingly so - apparently done without understanding the scandal that followed. So I took it out, because it was badly supported and promotional. Based on the new refs you brought here which make the underying picture more clear, I am going to try and add some content about it back in, being careful to mind BLP and NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And done, here. It is borderline UNDUE but is concise as I could make it; one can argue that the weight is DUE since most of the press about her talks about her role in that widely discussed artificial trachea stuff... which then went down in flames around her. Oy. I still say this article is WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just listed 11 SPA accounts on the Talk page. Most of the back and forth removal/adding of the artificial trachea stuff was done by them along with other POV edits. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 29 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 per WP:A7 by Ritchie333. Non-admin closure —Non-Dropframe _talk 14:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Sharma[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable person lovkal (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not really sure why this was brought to AfD -- this is a clear A7 speedy delete. I've taged it on the page. —Non-Dropframe _talk 12:48, 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. very clear consensus, DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Mizrahi[edit]

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

Promotional article not adhering to WP:NPOV. The businesses started by the subject have reached notability (sourced in article), but role of artist himself is not clear and it is hard to assess his notability. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~Weak Delete. ~~Clearly notable after BEFORE, while filtering out other ofer mizrahies (very common Israeli name)~~. He is the main driving force, public face and operator of the companies he founded. ~~Plenty of coverage and some awards.~~ The article itself is indeed poorly written, is an advert, and doesn't even mention clear negatives such as a chapter 11.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)changed:Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can trim the promotional and non-neutral content from the article, but I know nothing about the topic. If I clean up and someone (you?) gives the article some balance, maybe we can keep it? Ariadacapo (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that searching for dirt on his chapter-11 - leads only to this (in google news) - [16] with no coverage on how he emerged from this - I've changed my mind - if he was notable, this episode should've received much more coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedily deleted as WP:G11. There is nothing in the article that can be kept if the promotional content is removed. Yes, it's a bit odd that the Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection isn't mentioned, but not surprising, since this is an advert. Since when do we refer to people as 'real estate visonary'? Yuck. Mduvekot (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is the most blatantly promotional article I have seen on Wikipedia. I literally felt like vomiting when I read it. Once the promotional garbage about the floor-covering business is removed, nothing is left, so speedy delete. No notability whatsoever. How did this end up here?198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I took a chainsaw to the promotional garbage that this article was built on. What's left is very unconvincing as to notability. A few refs with passing mentions.198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of notability. Hell, even that portrait is obviously promotional. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - self-promotion as per above. Netherzone (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local real estate developer. It is telling that he is included in an article on what "small firms" are doing by the Wall Street Journal. He is a small time operator and no indication that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 28 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tito’s[edit]

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

One current/ongoing club night doesn't seem particularly notable out of all the millions there currently are. The primary reasoning for notability seems to be that the founder got arrested for some major fraud or something, but that doesn't seem to make the club notable by association. Especially as Cursach seems to have LOTS of clubs and things linked to him, so why is this one more notable than others? Mabalu (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article's rationale seems more based in the author's obsession with Cursach's arrest than anything significant about the nightclub. If kept the copyvio in the history identified by Bonadea needs to be WP:REVDELed. Cabayi (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT notability. A plausible redirect to Tito's Vodka or just plain Tito should be considered after the fact. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:38, 28 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) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iikss[edit]

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

There is a lack of sources backing up claims set out in the article - it is entirely based on the group's own website. I also have problems with WP:POV and WP:PROMO. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. We have no evidence so far that this group is notable when it comes to being discussed by reliable sources. Alephb (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent source documenting this organization.Glendoremus (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, WP:NORG sets a very high threshold for NGOs. There may be sources in Iranian / Persian that discuss the importance of this NGO (there certainly is no coverage of the topic in English). However, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an invalid argument, and until such sources are found, I have agree that the topic lacks notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 28 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) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Yasir[edit]

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

It seems that for several days the main author has been unable to add any sources to confirm the existence of Prince Yasir and his claim to a Wikipedia article. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable and the single-sentence claim isn't verifiable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources, this could be WP:HOAX. Couldn't find refs that would help save it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Iltutmish could have had other sons, I, too, can't find a source on one of this name. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete without prejudice to possible re-creation, if notability can be established. This place-holder fails to establish any. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Obviously hoax this article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article, no sources could be found to prove this person existed ever.Exemplo347 (talk) 00:12, 29 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) Winged Blades^Godric 09:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Nash[edit]

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

non-notability GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some refs - icluding a ny-times piece from 1974. I'm sure there are more (but need to hit print archives for this period). He is a significant railroad figure - that oversaw the demise of a rather significant line, and was prolific both before and after (in terms of historical preservation).Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep. His presidency of two Class I railroads probably makes him notable, though we'll want to verify those details. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Railroad (and he's in the wiki there) is sourced from NY-Times (of him stepping down in 1974) in article - [17]. Memorabilia with his sig/name is sold (as railway memorabilia) - from a quick google search, for instance - [18]. Probably possible to source the earlier stuff (not from obit / 90s coverage) - but need to go through print archives.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary gives me pause. It was probably written by the family and not the Post Standard's writers. That goes to notability; it also means we should be wary of using it as a source for anything other than his birth and death dates. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is currently sourced from this, I believe - [19] which is independent. The NY-Times source I added from 1974 is more significant - but specific to Lehigh Valley Railroad.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another - from the 50s - ny times - [20] and post-standard from the 60s - [21] I don't have archive access however. Here is a bunch of other refs - [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article as prose and incorporated Icewhiz's sources, plus a few of my own. Nash was president and later bankruptcy trustee of a major Northeastern railroad during a period of considerable upheaval and received plenty of coverage. Some of the coverage is of him, some of his position. Still, I think it's probably enough. I certainly don't fault the original nomination. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least per the rewrite the individual is the subject of multiple in depth reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References brought this up to standards and meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 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 Keep. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current AFL Women's team squads[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic content, falling somewhere between WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:DIRECTORY – a real-time simple list of names with no context and no scope to include any context or prose. Content is already included with context on club pages, club season pages, etc., and this article adds nothing. Aspirex (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was most likely created based on List of current AFL team squads, an article which has been stable for 10+ years. If the women's page is deleted, the AFL one should be too. Flickerd (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree. I hadn't seen the men's squad page before, but I'd have bundled into a single deletion request if I had. Aspirex (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least Projectify. I know this is all WP:ITSUSEFUL, but I regularly use the men's page, both to view all squads on one page if I'm watching a game, but also to catch vandalism and new page creation via the related changes link. Much easier than adding >700 pages to my watchlist. And (moving onto WP:OTHERSTUFF) if you do delete this and then move onto the men's list, you better be prepared to keep going to List of current NRL team squads, List of current NBA Development League team rosters, List of current NBA team rosters, List of current AFC team rosters and List of current NFC team rosters, and probably more. It seems that it is a standard list for most major sports. The-Pope (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a fan of lists. Normally I would suggest a category, but there are many AFLW players without WP articles, so they will not appear in categories. This is useful for WP development and to see all current players in one place – rather than lacking context, it actually provides context in conjunction with related articles. It is not an indiscriminate list, and all those listed are notable per WP:NAFL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - compliments similar article for men's teams as well as those in other sports. Not sure why this article has been singled out. Makes sense to have an article grouping of teams, and I agree with the rationales put forward by Jack and The-Pope above -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list compliments existing lists as stated above and is useful for locating the specific womens squads. -- Dane ^talk 02:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jacknstock and The-Pope. It's worth noting that the WAFL is a new professional league, so our coverage of it is going to be a work in progress. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AFLW; WAFL is Western Australian Football League. I'm guessing you're not from Western Australia! :-D Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The-Pope - this is a single member of a standard list type for sports. This league has only just had their first grand final. Even though it seems like it's too soon to be creating a list of the *current* team members (as opposed to squads of yore), that's partially what Wikipedia is - not paper. This list will help people search for these women, and will, in due course, help people write their biographies. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:41, 27 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) Winged Blades^Godric 09:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Rational Voter[edit]

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

A long article, short on genuinely reliable independent sources. Half the sources are the author himself, the balance are generally trivial, or unreliable (e.g. Volokh). The article was substantially expanded by a user who appears to have some relationship with the author, Caplan, and has promoted Caplan extensively in other articles on Wikipedia. This book does not appear to be influential and some of the reviews are - ahem - unflattering. One fo the sources is actually just a comment by someone saying they haven't read it! Guy (Help!) 07:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the reviews are flattering or not is absolutely irrelevant. All reviews a book receives count toward its being notable. If a book receives lots of reviews calling it total crap, and no positive reviews at all, then it probably is notable and we should have an article about it, because of the large number of reviews. Things are notable because they get attention in reliable sources, and there is no rule the attention has to be positive (whether the reviews themselves are well-informed or written by people who know what they are talking about is likewise irrelevant). Possible COI issues are also not a reason for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous reviews by mainstream outlets suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely reviewed and discussed. The already-cited, detailed article by Louis Menand in The New Yorker [27] pretty much cinches the case by itself, and there is plenty more evident in the most basic searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Election results in 2005[edit]

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

Useless and redundant content forks, there is no relation between any of the events covered in these articles aside from the fact that they were all elections in the given years, already covered at articles for individual elections. We already have List of elections in 2005 etc, so there is no need. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating related pages

- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Pointless. Number 5 7 08:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These seem incredibly unnecessary. I can't see this article being useful for anyone. PureRED (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the relevant "List of elections in..." articles, as WP:CFORKs at valid search terms. ansh 666 19:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, since if the intention was to create lists (these articles don't identify as lists), then lists already exist, as noted by nom. If the intention was full featured articles, then the combination of unrelated election results doesn't pass WP:GNG. Creating a redirect is useless, since if anyone ever searches for "Election results in 2005" they'll expect to see results - not a list of elections. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, completely pointless. Mélencron (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - These are useless as they are covered in other articles. -- Dane ^talk 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per IsaacSt's excellent reasoning – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - agree with nominator.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 28 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glayton Modise[edit]

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

Attempted to redirect, which kept being reverted with, quite honestly, nonsensical explanations. No indication that this person passes notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frederick Samuel Modise per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. The Modise, Sr. article does at least have a few more sources. This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frederick Samuel Modise, where this person is already mentioned. There is nothing to establish independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Update to Keep based on sources added, especially by @E.M.Gregory:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went to the Frederick Samuel Modise article, and was almost ready to support a redirect or merge, but I don't understand the relationship between "Glayton" and "Frederick": Are they father and son? Neither article says!96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well written, but the Glayton article makes reference to Frederick as: "...the father of only son Glayton Modise." Glayton thus appears to be the son. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right -- I found this quote: "Bishop Glayton Modise, who has died in Johannesburg at the age of 76, was the leader of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, which has 350 branches and more than three million members in Southern Africa.

He inherited the leadership in 1998 from his father, Frederick Modise." "Obituary: Glayton Modise, head of ZCC breakaway church," Chris Barron, 2016-02-21 This may prove useful in sorting out this mess.96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing that in this article. I was looking at the father's article, which was unclear, but I fixed it here.96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:12, 13 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, J 947 05:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As the leader of 350 churches, Glayton was in a position similar to that of the bishop or archbishop in a major denomination. Accordingly, he is certainly notable. The current article is hardly more than a stub, but that is not grounds for deletion. Are there any newspaper obituaries? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I posted his obit earlier, right here. Was that what you were looking for, & somehow overlooked? (It's all good : we all overlook stuff, since we're only human.)

Yes, the Obituary in the South Africa Sunday Times is liked above. Having read it, I am all the more convinced that this is a keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, very good. While you weighed in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Grey, another article on the chopping block, I notice you didn't vote. Since your last comment there, much discussion, especially pro, but also con, has ensued & developed. Do you think you could take another look and weigh in some more? It's been relisted. Moreover, the article is more solid since some recent edits to Erika Grey. Thanks.96.59.129.57 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As per Peterkingiron (talk) who mentions his oversight, but I'd add, the fact his father is notable is a very strong argument for keeping. (Not that having a 'notable' father, alone, is sufficient, but it helps.96.59.169.231 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I add that I just looked at article: "a total membership of over three million." VERY notable, even if for no other reason.96.59.169.231 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added a few of the major South African papers that covered him. A number of articles during this tenure, teh church was a big deal and campaigning politicians used to stop by, producing article that describe the Church's scale and buildings. When he died, there was a battle over who would run the church; involving a son, Modise's two rival wives, and thousands of people mobbing courts where some aspect of teh church's afairs were being settled. Also a good deal of violence. It would be nice if someone felt equal to the challenge of producing a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 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 no consensus. As concerns WER v REW, at least in the present, improved state. There's however consensus to merge Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd into WER v REW. Sandstein 11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WER v REW[edit]

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

Insignificant legal case for non-notable person. Only sources are Popbitch (a primary source as original party to the super injunction) and Society of Editors - a niche website of specialised interest. Article is unlikely to ever pass GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for approx the same reason. Not going to pass GNG, insignificant legal case of non-notable subject:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per O Fortuna. Please also note O Fortuna's other recent edits to the article. (addition 12:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC))~~Delete~~. I did leave a note on the talk pages of a bunch of articles like this to notify the creator/maintainer of those article, DanielJCooper that many are likely to end up here. I also posted a note at WikiProject Law to see if anyone there thinks these articles need to be saved. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was shocked that anyone would think something this far under the public-consciousness radar would warrant an article to begin with. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to list every law case in the UK, especially ones where there will never be enough detail to bring it beyond a totally uninformative stub. If the person concerned was notable, and mentioning the case would pass BLP concerns, it could perhaps merit a brief reference on their page - but they're not of course. Alternatively, it could be referred to in the broader page about superinjunctions or privacy injunctions - which it already is. So this can go. N-HH talk/edits 12:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a no-brainer of there ever was one. Do I feel snow in the air? Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd into WER v REW. The case had ~~significant~~ implications in English case-law and has been discussed regularly, in reliable sources, since; but they are effectively the same case, so no need for two distinct articles. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thank you for commenting and explaining! I will change my !vote. I hope you respond to my post at WikiProject Law about the other similar "Super Injuctions" that have equally weak RS at this time. Daniel said they are stubs, so maybe there is RS for them also. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what are the "significant implications" for English case law? They may well exist, but I'm not aware of any, and there's nothing in this comment or the article in question to explain what they are. The only reason AFAIK that the case was discussed at all in the media was because there was a vague link to an actual notable person, which led to a bit of tabloid interest. I'm still not clear that either page is needed or justified. N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps: OK, I see that page was expanded since I last looked. Please see comments here on that (placed there as probably too detailed for this AfD page). N-HH talk/edits 12:45, 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, J 947 05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to above: as far as legal decisions go it really was not significant. It set no new precedent, just being an interpretation of existing law. It wasnt relevant in the wider issue of super-injunctions (cases such as the Trafig toxic dumping etc having the real meat in the area), and arguably it would not have raised a blip if it wasnt for the relationship to a much more famous non-party. A person with no celebrity connection wouldnt have made the press except as a passing mention in a law review. The key quote is the final one from the Guardian: "a further setback to the power of privacy orders to restrict reporting". Emphasis mine, this was just another in a line of super-injunction related cases at the time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It now passes the WP:GNG, having been covered in multiple, third party, reliable, independent sources, with both depth and persistence of coverage. The issues raised in the nomination have been addressed, in so far that the notability of.one of the parties is less than the other, and the sourcing has been improved. About 500%, in numbers :) ...Whiiiich the article did not when it was nominated. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notabilty (now established) for its superinjunction status rather than notability of parties. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:26, 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 no consensus. Bordering on "keep", but the outcome is the same: the article is kept, at least for now. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient for an article, and this is something editors can in good faith disagree about. Sandstein 11:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Benjamin[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)

Articles for deletion/Carl Benjamin

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

Previously deleted in 2016. Its sources are all passing mentions of Benjamin's online role as an Internet troll and minor role in Gamergate. Only source with some semblance of depth is this article in The Sunday Times, which covers a "trolling campaign" of his. At best, this is BLP1E, and at worst, this is a minor figure with no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (By the way, the easiest way to tell that Heat Street is unreliable is to find this page when looking for its editorial credentials. Reliability is about editorial pedigree and reputation for fact-checking.) czar 01:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your claim that the Heat Street contact us page shows evidence that this is an unreliable source. Can you explain further? (full disclosure: I am an occasional Heat Street contributor.) Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor I usually work under is The Washington Post's former video director, btw. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the absence of an editorial policy, the absence of a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and I only mentioned it as acknowledgement of the biography's talk page discussion. If you want to discuss further, the best venue for your question is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where, for instance, a current thread addresses Heat Street by name. czar 08:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't common practice for online-only publications to list their editorial policy on the mast head. Not publishing an editorial policy is not the same as not having one. Still don't get how this is relevant. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Schierbecker It is mainly relevant because if Heat Street had a written editorial policy, it would likely be considered a reliable source (rather than a marginal one). If Heat Street could be considered a reliable source in this article then the notability of this subject wouldn't be in question. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Benjamin meets Wikipedia's notability policy for entertainers by a good margin. His videos have 136 million views (plus another 12 million on this channel). The sources don't just show popularity, but that Sargon is a global political force. A Los Angeles Times reporter calls him a "provocative cultural commentator." BuzzFeed calls Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson "prolific political-correctness watchdogs." Heat Street calls him a "resoundingly popular anti-PC YouTuber". Another source not mentioned in the article, and also surely not a passing mention: Sargon on The Rubin Report. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It says on your user page that you're a reporter for Heat Street. Isn't that a conflict issue if you're using sources of a publication you're part of for an article you made? GamerPro64 04:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I acknowledged my affiliation above. No, it really isn't a conflict to vouch for the verifiability of your own outlet. You can even cite yourself "within reason" per Wikipedia policy. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are looking for conflicts you may want to focus on my interview with Sargon last year. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't notice the disclosure at the top. Also, looking through Google News there is an article about Sargon's game from Siliconera that can be useful. Also saw a piece about him on Gizmodo recently but am not sure its appropriate for the article. GamerPro64 05:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person. Youtube views & videos are not sufficient for establishing notability if he has not achieved consistent, significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see much having changed with the article from when it was first deleted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we use the most rigid definition of WP:RS, then this person is covered by TeleSUR,^[1] the Los Angeles Times and the Sunday Times. I've seen worse coverage in failed AfDs. Maybe we should reinsert the TeleSUR-part to show that mr. Benjamin/Akkad got significant non-trivial coverage.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned by name once in an article, especially for the same event, is not significant coverage. Don't see how you can write a biography with solely passing mentions, the LA Times opinion piece, and the Sunday Times mentioned in the nom czar 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the coverage is sufficient to make an article of it. But that is my opinion. I wonder what the administrators think of it.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources here to demonstrate notability. It might be marginal but its there; how about this article in Vice that has some significant coverage [28]? 2016 might have been too soon, but it doesn't seem like it is too soon any more. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linked that specific article in the nom as a passing mention czar 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it more than a passing mention IMO. The article isn't just about him, true, but mentions him 6 times in total and of those discussed in the article, he gets the most coverage. Again, as I said, it is marginal, but it is there. Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I don't see the point in deleting articles like these (marginally notable bios where a fanbase really, really, wants an article). If we don't have an article there will be constant creations of poor quality submissions that will either end up at AfD or if the page is create-protected will end up wasting loads of time over at AfC. Also you can end up in a situation like over at Paul Joseph Watson where the page was deleted numerous times, create protected, and then even after the subject did get significant coverage, the article languished as a draft because of creation protection. Better to have a short stub on the topic that is decently written and can be improved. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP policy is to delete articles on topics that haven't received significant coverage. All fans can do in that model is lobby for more coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of sensational headlines. czar 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'marginally notable' not non-notable. To be clear I believe there is significant coverage here, but it is not overwhelmingly obvious. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- coverage are passing mentions or otherwise not suitable for meeting SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a collection of fan pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; What about these episodes on The Rubin Report where Carl has been interviewed at depth multiple times by Dave Rubin? episode 21 and episode 58. ~~These seem to easily satisfy the reliability criteria on their own as in-depth coverage of the topic.~~ Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added these sources to the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent of the subject, and are not sufficient for establishing notability, per WP:BASIC. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a fair point. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a well known person: [29](Gizmodo) [30] (Huffington Post) [31] (Breitbart). These sources havn't been mentioned yet, and all mention the subject in decent detail. I think he passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlike fellow Youtuber Paul Joseph Watson, who has received significant coverage for the Sweden/Tim Pool offer, Sargon doesn't seem to be notable yet, even though he has a dedicated fanbase that is growing. But fanbase or number of followers don't establish notability, and most of the coverage in RS are indeed passing mentions, with only some blog entries discussing him in more detail. And per Grayfell, an interview in The Rubin Report doesn't establish notability. κατάστασ η 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [[32]} this source from the huffington post AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above reasonings. --Aleccat 03:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeterTheFourth. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [[33]} this source from the huffington post AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already used as a source with "The Good Men Project". GamerPro64 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --NoGhost (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is up with all the votes from newish contributors? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politically charged or contentious AfDs are just like that, they tend to pull a bunch of people out of the woodwork (both for and against). The argument for deletion of this article really depends on how you define 'passing mentions' (is an article that is 1/3 about the subject a 'passing mention'?--IMO it is not). To say that this subject is not notable also requires completely dismissing Heat Street coverage. Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about 'Heat Street'. People who are voting delete seem to be dismissing Heat Street as an unreliable source, despite a body of evidence that indicates that Heat Street issues retractions [34] (issuing retractions is a sign of a reliable source). 2: that they are taken seriously as a journalistic source by the white house and other news outlets: [35], [36], [37], [38]. as well as being taken seriously as a journalistic source by Factcheck.org [39].

Heatstreet alone has enough coverage of Benjamin to easily establish GNG [40], [41]. and there seems to be a body of evidence to establish that Heatstreet has a reputation as a reliable source among other reliable sources. Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sargon of Akkad has been covered by sources other than Heat Street such as The Los Angeles Times and Daily Dot (which are already included in the article). Sargon also had a passing mention in Crave Online where he interviewed wth Jontron. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I honestly don't believe there's any real reason to delete the article. Even if the articles are in passing of Sargon, there's still information about him that can be used. Granted it'll end up as a weak article but still shows notability about the YouTuber. GamerPro64 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage of the subject that is between passing mentions and substantial coverage, including ones that put him as one of the most prominent members of the right-wing Youtuber movement, that WP:BASIC is met. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He gets enough views on his youtube videos to merit a celebrated status. netcowboy 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that netcowboy has made very few edits and this is his first edit since 2008. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - He is a notable and influential youtuber who has been referenced by multiple media sources and politicians.Andres rojas22 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres rojas22: Sorry- which politicians have referenced him? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Phillips (politician)Andres rojas22 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres rojas22: When and where? Would you be able to provide proof? Which additional politician(s) do you suppose referenced him (given that you used the plural form)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is what Andres rojas22 is referring to. however, Jess Philips does not mention him by name in the article, but does refer to his actions, and the tweets she received from others as a result of his comment "I wouldn't even rape you." This particular article by Phillips doesn't contribute to Benjamin's notability (though the coverage of the same incident in the Sunday Times does). Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Benjamin himself talked about this article in this video. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is too soon for an article that would cover Benjamin encyclopedically. I am not convinced that the depth of coverage is substantial enough for a BLP, given that it consists almost exclusively of short opinion pieces and trivial mentions. Most of these are already included in the article itself or are discussed above, and I found no other substantial coverage after a thorough search. The opinion pieces (like the articles in the Los Angeles Times, telesur, and the Huffington Post, which is republished at the Good Men Project) comprise the most substantial portion of this article's sourcing, and while they are useful additions to an article in representing the spectrum of opinion, they are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I am extremely skeptical of counting Heat Street as an RS–it does not make any attempt to distinguish its mostly satirical opinion commentary (e.g. "American Values Under Attack: Link Is Transgender for 10 Minutes in New ‘Zelda’ Game", "Why Tracer Being Gay Is Offensive to Otherkin Like Me") from actual journalism. User:Insertcleverphrasehere proposed that it is taken seriously as a journalistic source by several outlets, but this seems to be largely a misrepresentation of their positions: the articles all indicate the media "takes Heat Street seriously" in the sense that they were important to the administration's wiretapping story, but they do not characterize its work as serious journalism; even the most avid followers of Mensch's reporting described in the articles, like Spayd, couch their praise with "I have no idea whether it's true or not". This indicates, if anything, a poor reputation; as mentioned by Czar before, the lack of a written editorial policy only furthers this. Other available sourcing is far too trivial (see one-sentence mention in Salon, the one-sentence scattered, brief, mentions on Buzzfeed News, a few short sentences in The Daily Dot, a tangential mention in VICE which devotes a short paragraph to the Jess Phillips incident and little more, etc.) The most substantial piece of journalism, this Times article, is much better contextualized in the Jess Phillips article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have inserted this from Inside Higher Ed, which is not enough for a Wikipedia-article in itself, but combined with all other references, I think it contributes to establish the notability of mr. Benjamin.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is enough coverage on him in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – very high profile on YouTube (> 150 million views) and set to get bigger. Cited by numerous bloggers as an influence. Jprw (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear closer, a link in which the subject himself expounds on the inaccuracies and incompleteness of the article. After well-attended AfD, it should be an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic. czar 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the inaccuracies he described were minor (and have been fixed), and he concluded by saying that the article was a fair representation of him, including both criticism and counterpoints. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the inaccuracies mentioned by Benjamin were: a) year of birth and b) the year Sargon became active on Youtube. Both have been fixed. For the rest, mr. Benjamin said, in the description of his video: “And...it's not bad. Way better than the GamerGate one,” and in the vid itself: “There is nothing I object to,(4:49)” I fail to grasp how this could be “an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic.”Jeff5102 (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly notable per N, being a known public figure with millions of views and news mentions. Although I can already see the wave after wave of inevitable edit-warring... -- Director (talk) 15:43, 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 Republic of Serbian Krajina. There's consensus not to have an article. There's no clear consensus where to redirect or whether to merge what where to, but this can be figured out through the editorial process subsequently. Sandstein 11:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina[edit]

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

The page contains information redundant from Republic of Serbian Krajina and Flag of Serbs of Croatia. May be merged with one of the articles or deleted. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see anything relevant that is not already in the linked articles. --T*U (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Republic of Serbian Krajina There is minimal content here, but whatever does exist should be merged and redirected to the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flag of Serbs of Croatia. People searching for this would be looking for information on the flag, not the political entity. It's very easy to navigate from the flag article to the political entity article anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Serbian flags. Flag of Serbs of Croatia is not the best target, as the use and particularly the background of these flags are quite different. GregorB (talk) 15:44, 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 Airport_West,_Victoria#Commerce. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone, the only question is delete vs redirect. Deletes win the headcount, but redirect makes sense per WP:ATD so going with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Airport West[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews reveals run of the mill coverage. the centre is relatively small sized for an Australian centre. 2 of the 3 sources in the article are primary. those arguing for keep should not use the weak argument or how about other Westfields?. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Airport West, Victoria § Commerce per WP:ATD-R. After a few brief searches, not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, this is a valid search term, and the redirect target already has some content about this shopping centre. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar. Non notable mall, and being a Westfield mall does not assume notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per User:Northamerica1000. Nothing but the usual run of the mill commercial pages coverage, and not so much detail it can't be adequately covered in the locality article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is awkward. The article is now (by coincidence) also being discussed a part of a class at the batch nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Innaloo (2nd nomination). Whether that discussion now supersedes this one, or vice versa, or something else... I'm not sure how this should be handled. "Ignore that other discussion" would be defensible, but so so would "close this as moot and see what that other discussion decides". Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot due to this being resolved in the broader discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no. That discussion has been closed as an inappropriate AfD. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the bulk nomination as it was out of process. I don't see any barrier to this nomination proceeding. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient evidence of notability -- in practice the level at which we usually keep is 100,000 sq meters, and this is only half that DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marly Sarney[edit]

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

AfDing this as WP:NOTINHERITED since I have a feeling a speedy will be contested. TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The spouse of a nation's executive are usually kept. In addition, the Portuguese Wikipedia entry is much more complete and includes numerous references. --Enos733 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, there is no way WP:CSD would ever be appropriate in this case. SPEEDY is for cases where an article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". WP:A7 states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Can anyone imagine nominating Michelle Obama for speedy deletion? Keep per the above. AusLondonder (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I see refs during a cursory search.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that WP:NOTINHERITED contains the proviso that it "does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." The article definitely needs improvement, so it should be flagged for needing additional references, but per above commenters there is evidence out there that stronger sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 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 Family Guy (season 15)#Episodes. Arguments such as "there is a Wikipedia article for every episode of the series" fall into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a not a valid argument at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cop and a Half-wit[edit]

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

Could be a redirect to the series, but no indication of stand-alone notability regarding this particular episode. Was a redirect, which was reversed, but almost solely consists of a plot summary. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article needs work, but there is a Wikipedia article for every episode of the series. There's no need to delete this page when 1) the article can be improved and 2) a redirect would be the most appropriate course of action IF a standalone article were deemed inappropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. I am agreeing with Another Believer on this one. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent structure Category:Family Guy episodes includes 300-odd articles. This is an episode that aired two days ago and every reason exists to assume that this article will be expanded and sourced to match the hundreds of other such episode articles. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why we have to have an article for every single episode of a show. The articles for this and the previous season lack a significant amount of independent reviews/coverage and are basically just plot summaries with one or two reviews mentioned. If enough meaningful content can be added like Road to the North Pole, it can be re-created.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15)#Episodes. Most every one of these episode articles have only plots. This isn't a case of "wait and see" for expansion. Articles should be researched before creation, especially episode articles which have become plot dumps of late. — Wylie pedia 16:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15)#Episodes per CAWylie, or delete. Individual episodes are subject to the same notability guidelines that everything else is. There is no reason for us to have hundreds of articles on each individual episode of Family Guy, unless there has been significant critical or media coverage of an episode for some reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Wyliepedia. We need to start looking at FG articles much more closely as the show gets older and new episode articles have now now declined into 'type what I see' plotline reviews that the most rudimentary recap site would reject, a cite to the plot from Fox PR, followed by an episode grade from some random site (usually IGN, a gaming site, and even that's now getting the dreaded 'expand section' tag for newer episodes, meaning we're it for a synopsis on the web outside of fansites, which should not be where we are). Nate • (chatter) 14:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It is a plot-only episode summary. There is nothing that shows this specific episode has any independent notability, as the only sources are generally just plot synopsis that do not go into any non-plot discussion. The fact that there are articles are other FG articles is meaningless if this particular one does not meet the notability standards. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are folks actually searching for sources before commenting on the lack of sources? We should not merge/delete this article if has potential to grow, just because the article is currently incomplete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't answer for anybody else, but I did, and, as I said, could find nothing but plot synopsis. I have yet to find any reviews on the episode from any notable sources, nor any information saying anything meaningful about the development of this particular episode. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did (and have for most of these articles that have come to AfD); We've got under 60 G-hits under the episode title + review; without the 'review' appendage we have this article as #3, then Family Guy wiki and its IMDb entry, then TV.com before we decline to 'buy this episode', 'watch on Fox or Hulu.com' or 'stream this episode illegally and obliterate your PC through spyware' links. There is no there there; it's an average episode of an animated sitcom. The reason this lethargy still exists is that in the past multiple TV sites were hiring people to recap anything with a 22-minute plot on a screen so sources are plentiful, but since 2015 when AV Club decided to cull down to high-hit reviews and other sites did the same, these episodes somehow still get articles because of the past, even though it's just IGN and some site called 'BubbleBlabbers' reviewing it at this point in just 'acknowledge and move on' style. Enough is enough; this isn't going to grow, become a classic episode or be mentioned again beyond season reviews. This isn't the Wikipedia of 2007 and its time to be more judicious about what shows deserve episode articles or not at this point. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I like Family Guy, but see no reason why every episode should have an article, especially if they are simply going to be all plot as most of the current season 15 episode articles are. Dunarc (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Jones II[edit]

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

Unprodded without rationale. Fails WP:NCOLLATH, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 1,000 yard rusher and Rose Bowl championship as a sophomore for USC in 2016. Going into his junior year in the fall of 2017. Passes WP:GNG by having received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. See, e.g., (1) this, (2) this, and (3) this from Los Angeles Times, (4) this and (5) this from ESPN.com, (6) this from The Oklahoman, (7) this from McKinney Courier-Gazette, (8) this, (9) this, and (10) this from Los Angeles Daily News, and (11) this from the Orange County Register. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. RCFrance (talk) 23:02, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Per concerns herein about the article needing copy editing, I have added the {{cleanup afd}} template atop the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Markandeya[edit]

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

Non Notable run of the mill advocate Uncletomwood (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of puffery and irrelevancies which are enough to obscure actual claims to notability. This includes involvement in some major human rights cases before the Supreme Court of India, backed up by references in WP:RS. That seems notable under the WP:GNG and likewise fits under Bearian's Attorney notability essay.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim down. Thanks for the note, Eggishorn. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should be the one thanking you for that essay. It is a valuable resource. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I trimmed it some. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject with lots of citations to support this notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Security Group[edit]

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

No significant independent sources. Most (all ?) are own web-site and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is listed twice - here and 2 steps down... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 15 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, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails SIGCOV. Advertorial, with strongly suspected COI from creator and the 2 IPs, all of which have only edited this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded the article early last month as "not notable", and that still holds true due to the lack of independent and reliable sources. Schwede 66 08:53, 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. Per WP:PROF#C6. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alangar Jayagovind[edit]

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as failing WP:V. Every single ref given in the article is a dead link, and these references are only given as footnotes for the last two sentences in the article, dealing with his visiting positions and his 26 publications. Nothing in GoogleScholar, and almost nothing even for a plain google search[42]. For the latter, only 376 results, and almost all of those are to Wikipedia mirrors. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, it seems the subject is better known as "A Jayagovind". I searched this and found some relevant results. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references do not add to pasing GNG, and his postions and background do not add to passing any notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As former vice chancellor of NLSIU [43] (that is, its actual head, not its ceremonial head) he may pass WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep a vice chancellor is in effect the CEO of the university and meets WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 21 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, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C6 as the subject was the academic head of an university (seems to be a government university). There are some secondary sources available for verification, on searching for "A Jayagovind" such as [44], [45], [46], [47]. These are not the best sources (they seem to be replying on press releases or are quotes by the subject), but can be used for verifiability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:08, 27 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. Ultimately there are no policy-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic Sinclair[edit]

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

WP:NPF definitely seems to apply here. Benmite (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisting. Benmite (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic is a relatively notable director and musician, and is a major part of the That Poppy project which has gained serious traction in both the online niche AND the mainstream media lately. Cue her collaborations with Comedy Central and with iHeartRadio, all due to Titanic Sinclair. Imesko (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2017

Yes, he is a large contributor to the That Poppy project, but at the end of the day he is not nearly as notable or as well-known as Poppy herself. Also, I have not been able to find much about Poppy or Sinclair in the "mainstream media". Regardless of who managed to assist Poppy in collaborating with Comedy Central and iHeartRadio, he is not the one who appeared in the collaborations with them, Poppy is. I understand your point but would argue that to most, Sinclair is mostly a background figure who drives the project as opposed to someone who is at the forefront of it. As a musician, his band Mars Argo's work did not receive very much attention until his work with Poppy began to garner attention, and his work as a director has been minimal, to say the least. Benmite (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Would have to agree with Benmite; Sinclair isn't a public figure and more of a back stage person for That Poppy. Although mentioned in some sources, he isn't the main subject about them and merely mentioned only. Most sources on this article point to social media (not reliable) or items relating to both Mars Argo and himself. The article has also seem to make random assumptions, such as the arrest section or what Sinclair had commented himself here on Twitter about the page (although it might be light to say that much information about himself isn't in the public domain) as pointed out by user Hay232. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 6 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} 16:45, 13 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, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of comments have to be written here? And what is the problem with this article? Gonxunator (talk) 20:37, 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. Can be treated by an admin as a soft deletion (WP:SOFTDELETE) because of the lack of discussion. However, please don't ask me to undelete this. Sandstein 13:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brand X Music[edit]

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

Primary sourced advert for non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 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} 16:49, 13 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, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. SaintAviator lets talk 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 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) 01:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Adams[edit]

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

Actor's entire article is built around one casting on Days of Our Lives, and likely built from an IMDb profile. Hardly a notable BLP. livelikemusic talk! 01:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article shouldn't be deleted no matter what other people say. This article has enough citations needed, and the citations support the article, about the number of tv shows and movies the actor has starred in. It is very annoying when some annoying editors think it's more than okay for the article to be deleted. So I'm against it. --Princessruby (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. What votes like the above are really about are the Liv and Maddie fanboys. But, objectively, Adams is currently short on WP:NACTOR. Note that I can't even confirm if Adams' role on DOOL is currently a contract role or just a recurring role. Let's look at this one again in one year... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON and WP:NACTOR. Lacking significant roles so far but looks like career is advancing. WP:BASIC for bios requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" and references in article now say nothing about him as a person, just gives casting info which is not significant coverage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ According to a trusted source, Lucas' role in days of our lives is a contract one. Just by someone saying it's not a contract, it doesn't mean they are right. Plus I can see a team has been formed, for this article to be deleted!!! --Princessruby (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (Striking – You already voted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Delamont[edit]

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

This article lacks enough independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Two sources were written by the subject, and the other four are from her university, including her vita and a page of her specialties, which she wrote. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow AcSS [48] passes WP:PROF#C3 and big citations on Google scholar (32 publications with >100 citations each and h-index 53) also give her a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep well-cited researcher. The article can be improved, but AfD isn't the way to go about that. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep enormous citation record is conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. [49] is not given to all faculty, I assume. No Google Scholar profile, but GScholar shows top cites to articles and books by her as 954, 374, and a bunch more at 200-500 range (co-authored). Not seeing any sources about her, but she is likely at least borderline notable per WP:PROF. Couldn't find any reviews of the book, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 27 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 SALT yet ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Gunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was contested on the grounds that he played in a pre-season friendly tournament, which is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. The article still fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:09, 21 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) 12:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no change in the notability issues that resulted in deletion during the first AfD. Player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, would recommend against salting though as it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON if anything else. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer.Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:53, 28 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) 22:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southside Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the above article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage by third party sources --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 28 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. consensus confirms our usual practice

 DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Sheppard (politician)[edit]

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

The "About James Sheppard" link returned an error message when I tried it on March 20, 2017. However, it appears to be a publication of the subject's campaign, which would make it not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. More sources are needed to establish notabiltiy. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I can find unbiased news sources that back up this information, and will delete the "About James Sheppard" link promptly when more reliable sources are added. User:WuTang94 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference and added to article (Rochester Business Journal) Cllgbksr (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria. "Politicians and Judges" (2) "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". 4 reliable sourced articles, independent of each other covering subject. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject was the focus of an in-depth article describing his career when he retired as Chief of Police in 2013. In his role as chief, and in his current position as a county legislator, he is frequently quoted in the local Rochester press. He has not, from what I could find, been the subject in any national press (although he was featured in a column in the Albany Times Union). --Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a figure of purely local notability, it takes quite a lot more than just four pieces of purely local media coverage to get them over WP:NPOL #2 — every single local police chief who exists at all, anywhere in the entire United States, could always show four pieces of purely local coverage. What it would take in this instance is coverage which shows him as more notable than the norm for his role, such as coverage extending significantly beyond the purely local and/or the number of available references being closer to 50 than to five. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rochester, New York is the 3rd largest city in NY. It's not Mayberry RFD.Cllgbksr (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the city doesn't provide a free notability boost to a police chief at all. An article about a police chief always lives or dies on whether he's been shown to clear WP:GNG on the quality and volume of the sourcing, regardless of whether he's the police chief of the biggest city on the planet or the smallest village. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is about a Mayoral candidate. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject was just a candidate for mayor, many editors, including myself, would apply WP:ROUTINE toward all of the coverage generated during the mayoral campaign. Candidates for public office are not presumed notable, and the position of chief of police or county legislator have also not been afforded the presumption of notability (Note: the election contest might be (e.g. Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014)). The question in this case is whether a) the coverage of subject (prior to running for office) is sufficient to meet WP:GNG or b) whether the subject was a primary topic in national or international news coverage. I comment because this is a close case. There are much more than four pieces of local coverage of the subject, and one regional piece (that I have found). At least one of the local pieces is an in-depth feature of his career as chief of police. (As an aside, a majority of the article should be about the subject's extensive career, not his current campaign). --Enos733 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a mayoral candidate doesn't assist notability either. People in politics get Wikipedia articles by winning election and thereby holding office, not by merely being a candidate in an election they haven't won. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the subject is well known across Upstate New York, but I'm not sure how notable he is. FWIW, the incumbent is a friend of a friend of mine; we attended the same law school. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of local figures has to be a lot more indepth to show notability than we have here. I distrust articles that use meaningless phrases like "a polarizing figure". If people cannot bring out reliable sourced discussion of what made the person polarizing, than we lack the indepth coverage needed to form a workable article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found more in-depth articles detailing Sheppard's career as police chief to explain why he is a "polarizing figure". Check out the new section on his police career career. User:WuTang94 (talk) 20:51, 26 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City rivalry in Finland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cities have rivalries, of course. However, this article seems to be all WP:OR and is completely unsourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an WP:ESSAY and fails WP:GNG. I think this might even be a WP:HOAX. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a hoax, but it is an essay with original research. Fails GNG. Ceosad (talk) 19:20, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort Broncos[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the record, they do exist, but are clearly not notable. ansh 666 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like the team was renamed as is now defunct, based on [50] and the fact they do not appear on the league's page here [51]. The single source I found discussing the team is not enough to prove notability. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding the depth of coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type needed under WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:16, 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. What the IP writes makes little sense in terms of policy, and there is no other input, so this is essentially uncontested. This can be treated by an admin as a soft deletion (WP:SOFTDELETE) because of the lack of discussion. However, please don't ask me to undelete this. Sandstein 13:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (Comedy TV Series)[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a television series which airs only on a single local IPTV website in a single city. There's no evidence being shown of the wider distribution needed to clear WP:NMEDIA, and no indication of reliable source coverage to get it past WP:GNG -- the only reference being cited here is the sales page of a DVD on Amazon. There's simply nothing here to deem it notable enough for an article. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would like an explanation as to why the page has disappeared whilst it quite clearly states that there is a discussion as to whether this page will be deleted, It also states that I can still edit the page (and by edit I mean add further references(that I have not had time to add since I work and illness has required my attention of late...)) by the way, are you privy to the distribution details of the company that show the series? If so I would love to see evidence of that, from what I hear the show has been watched by and has tweets that mention the show as far away as Korea. Little bit out of the way considering the IPTV station as you say is local to Essex... Furthermore links with two actors who have pages on Wikipedia as well would to me suggest it is of interest to people who follow those pages. (ps. sorry if I seem a little ott with my rant here but I suffer from depression and not having a good time of late and this doesn't help particulary since I spent so much time setting the article up only to have you tear it down on a whim against it seems the rules stating that it was under discussion and I would still be able to edit it? Would love an explanation as to why I can't access the page anymore. (Ps. also why is there a page for Essex tv if its a local IPTV station? surely that contravenes the rules that you are mentioning earlier on in this talk?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.201.43 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I was able to edit the article I misunderstood how to get to it but the links to the page from relevant other articles have been removed that's what initially annoyed me about not being able to edit it. I will add more references to the show. I am still wondering why there is scrutiny over my article being about a show on a local iptv network though and yet an article exists for the channel itself, that seems to contradict itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.201.43 (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pippen[edit]

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

self-published, no independent coverage Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 27 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. Consensus is this fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources, and WP:FOOTYN because the team hasn't played their first match yet. No reason it can't be re-created (or this version restored) if/when these problems are resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naples United FC[edit]

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

Unpromising google search. Article is about small soccer team that hasn't played yet, TOOSOON, CRSYTAL, WP:FOOTYN L3X1 (distant write) 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Nom Withdrawn unless it would be considered disruptive, I would like to postpone this deletion until May 25th 2017, after their scheduled debut game. I think NAC would allow the Nom to close this as Probational Keep, withdrawn, so I can close this tomorrow unless this is objectionable. L3X1 (distant write) 15:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Given that there are !votes to delete the article, withdrawal of the nomination is not an option unless all such !votes are also withdrawn. If every !vote were to keep the article, you could withdraw your nomination and close it yourself, but this is not the case. If you were to attempt an NAC close, it would quickly be reverted. I would recommend allowing the AFD to run its course and have an admin make the final decision. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jkudlick OK, I'll let it run its course. Thanks for explaining. L3X1 (distant write) 14:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging some people from the football projects because of their experience, not SHOPPING nor Meat puppetry. I don't know how they will vote, or what they will say. I may have experience with them before, but I have not attempted to influence their vote in anyway. GiantSnowman Kosack Jellyman FilthyDon Peter_James Number_57 BoroFan89 Jkudlick L3X1 (distant write) 00:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that the team is scheduled to begin play in only a little over a month, I don't think a TOOSOON/CRYSTALBALL deletion is a good idea. Furthermore, almost every team in that league has an article, and I don't think this should be an exception. Lepricavark (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the club hasn't played a match, it falls short of WP:FOOTYN and the expectation of it playing, even in the near future, is WP:CRYSTAL. There seems to be surprisingly little coverage for a new franchise which would mean it does not pass WP:GNG either. Can be restored by an admin as soon as they play. Kosack (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot see from Google that this team even exists. Giant Snowman 08:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Club has not yet played a single match (WP:CRYSTAL), though it is listed on the NPSL website as a current club. Strangely, I find no other mention of the club on Google or Yahoo searches, so WP:GNG is clearly failed. Regarding WP:FOOTYN, there are three prior AFDs (Grand Rapids FC, AFC Ann Arbor, and Oakland United FC) that pointed out a particular ambiguity within the club notability section: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. This does not address teams which are eligible to play in the national cup but have not yet done so; overall consensus seems to have developed (see the three prior AFDs) that mere eligibility confers notability, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. To reiterate, I !vote to delete because WP:GNG is failed, and the club has not played a single match so WP:CRYSTAL applies and WP:FOOTYN does not. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably because of larger team S.S.C. Napoli who play in Italy, the english name for this city is Naples.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CRYSTAL doesn't apply, the team's about to begin their season. Just about every team in the league they're currently in has entered into the U.S. Open Cup, so unless it's clear this team won't also be held to that standard, it meets FOOTYN. This is a case for expansion, not deletion. If the article can't be expanded and improved within a few months, then come back and delete it. I would support deletion then 1000%. There's no rush. South Nashua (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator suports this reasoning as superior to deletion If the article can't be expanded and improved within a few months, then come back and delete it. I would support deletion then 1000%. There's no rush. L3X1 (distant write) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No point deleting if they will soon pass WP:NFOOTY. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like to vote "Keep" but since there is so little citation on this very article (4 or 5 different searches on both google and bing yealded 3 sources, one being the teams Facebook page and the other two being promotional) I cannot. Ether way it seems like WP:TOOSOON, I think L3X1 immediate comment above is the best way to go. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As per the previous comment, I'd be inclined to want to keep the article on the basis that most clubs at their level have been deemed notable, but the complete lack of reliable sources is a real problem for me. You would think a new franchise would generate some press coverage, but apparently not in this case. The fact they haven't played yet isn't the issue, it's the fact that they fail WP:GNG based on lack of significant coverage. Jellyman (talk) 14:42, 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.

^ Gentlemen, It's Time We Had a Serious Talk; by Rich Penney; 1 June 2016;Telesur

[1] Gentlemen, It's Time We Had a Serious Talk; by Rich Penney; 1 June 2016;Telesur

[1]