Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 March	23 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illiberal Reformers[edit]

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

Fewer than 150 unique GHits, a couple of reviews (NYT, which normally counts for osmething, and New Republic, not so much), but no real evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GHits are untrustworthy per comment against Arnold Kling below. More than surpasses NBOOK#1 with coverage also in/at WSJ, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Reason, Bloomberg View and BV again (...and then I found the author's page). Author is currently speedied, and as he doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC, merge or redirect would be a reasonable alternative. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BKCRIT #1 with multiple reviews mentioned above and in the article. I'm not sure why the nominator says The New Republic doesn't count; it's a long-established and prominent magazine often cited in other media. And there is coverage in other sources. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of significant reliable coverage. Google hits don't prove anything ever. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources available assert notability. I hope someone will edit the article, as it's a little on the POV side, with some editorializing going on. freshacconci (✉) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BKCRIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 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. Although a raw !vote count would come to only 3-2, I am satisfied that the arguments to keep have yielded a reasonable and actionable consensus here by demonstrating that the coverage is there. KaisaL (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Kling[edit]

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

Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name, and that includes a fair number of Wikipedia articles where the name was added by the author of this article, who is an associate of the subject. The article has never had reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no real coverage or inherited notability. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can't trust GHits because Google truncates results. For instance I get up to 221 hits for the more restrictive "Arnold Kling" site:*.edu, and only to 173 hits for a bare "Barack Obama" (YMMV). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His 2013 book Three Languages of Politics was reviewed in the WSJ[1]. Nowadays, it shows up on syllabi[2], in magazine articles[3], and in university press books[4]. His 2006 book Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking how We Pay for Health Care was reviewed in the New England Journal of Medicine [5], Political Studies Review [6] and The New Atlantis [7]. His 2009 book, From Poverty to Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities, and the Lasting Triumph Over Scarcity (with Nick Schulz) was called an "important new book" by David Brooks in the New York Times[8], called a "phenomenal new book" in the NY Post by Jonah Goldberg[9], it was reviewed in Foreign Affairs [10], also shows up in university syllabi[11], and continues to attract citation in the popular press like this article in The Hill from 2016[12]. I think it's clear that he's attracted sufficient critical attention to pass WP:AUTHOR 4c.--Jahaza (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza's list of sources showing repeated attention to his work. Another example: his 2016 book is reviewed by Yuval Levin in The National Review [13]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, Kling is well known and widely read and discussed in economics and policy. He definitely has a point of view, but that doesn't mean he isn't a suitable subject for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDP.pl[edit]

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

(Following is the analysis, skip to conclusion if you wish.)

This Article was originally moved from CD Projekt to CD Projekt RED in March 2012 by Boskee, stating that the company had changed its name (which it did not, CD Projekt RED is a subsidiary established in 2001, eleven years earlier). The then-redirected CD Projekt article was reinstantiated by the same user in April of that year. Then, in October 2012, the revived article was again moved to cdp.pl (a WP:TMRULES violation) by the same user, again stating that said company changed its name (and again falsely, CDP.pl was a newly established company for digital distribution inspired by GOG.com). At this point, the article was basically the CD Projekt article under a wrong name (nothing what a moved could have fixed, but here we are). The CD Projekt redirect remained untouched until July 2014, when Cornea Scratcher worked out a new article, this time the claim being that CD Projekt was a division of cdp.pl, a subsidiary of CD Projekt RED (all wrong), but other content being mostly accurate. Over a course of four years, the article was expanded further, and using that same content, the cdp.pl article was expanded as well (copy-paste, no rewrites as the History sections never stated cdp.pl even once). And now that I came by this article, I noticed how wrong it was: It was a broken version of the CD Projekt article (in a very bad shape), but under a false banner (including image). I trimmed down everything that was unrelated to CDP.pl, which basically encapsulated everything. Literally. I left be only the infobox and two lede sentences, of which one is sourced with a semi-reliable polish paywalled source (nothing against paywall, but as only a-bit-reliable source? [while the other was fan article]) This did not seem right, and I added a notability tag, but I figured I'd rather bring it here. Bringing it up to date, practically nothing links here: Dreamfall Chapters: The Longest Journey claims that CDP.pl was in charge of a Polish localization, although from my knowledge CDP.pl is not a localization house, wherefore I might have to check the source's reliability and correctness. The only other article that links here is Hard West, which's special edition was distributed by CDP.pl (I found this one to actually be true).

Conclusion: CDP.pl is unnotable and practically invisible and such not relevant to the English-speaking world. The article's history is a complicated mashup through misinterpretation of primarily one user, and has no proper content on its own. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, and should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 23:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - It's the polish version of EB Games without the notability Withdrawing my statement - Pmedema (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) *Delete - As per nom and WP:SOAP. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simply translate the Polish article my dude --Cornea Scratcher (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The polish article has the same problem, CD Projekt's history and a lot of unsourced stuff (likely WP:CITOGENESIS). Lordtobi (✉) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*:: @Cornea Scratcher: & @Lordtobi:: The polish version of the wiki article talks about what the corporation does, it's history, starting capital, etc. It seems to me to be trivial and potentially coming under WP:SOAP. In my opinion that should also be AfD'd. The references are poor (mostly from the same source - i.e. their own website) and the rest are either from a government database or a two paragraph online article from a national newspaper. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convoluted splits and mergers, plus name changes, are a problem here; we have related holding/parent company CD Projekt (a GA, too), its notable and reasonably well known internationally subsidiary GOG.com, another reasonably well known subsidiary CD Projekt RED... and then there is CDP.pl. Now, CDP.pl was named CD Projekt until 2012, then changed its name, and the old company changed its name... this name changing is confusing as hell. There is no doubt that most of those entities meet WP:NCORP, but the name changing obscures which one, perhaps all, perhaps some (since a source about CD Project may refer in fact to cdp.pl, or not). So the op, User:Lordtobi, is right that it is at best difficult to treat all coverage in those articles as supportive of notability (and the history sections, on pl wiki too, mix up history of all companies to some degree). Nonetheless, I see some mainstream, in-depth coverage of the latest incarnation in question, clearly referring to cdp.pl: [14] and [15] from Gazeta Wyborcza, a major Polish daily - that's two in-depth sources, which for me is the minimum requirement to meet WP:NCORP. Here's the third one: [16] from Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). They are from different years, so it's not coverage of one event, but proof that the company has enduring notability and is important enough to warrant regular coverage by Polish mainstream media. That's enough to make it a keep in my book, and some of you should know as that as the author of WP:CORPSPAM I don't say that often. PS. Coming to this I expected to add to the delete vote, and nominate this for deletion on pl wiki, which is what I usually do... but nope, this is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given Piotr's insight, it seems that it may be deserving of a en.wiki after all. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 08:43, 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. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hikaru Koto[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found.

The 2006 closed as "no consensus" with arguments such as "680,000 Google hits" etc. WP:PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Keep: Appears to meet PORNBIO#1, having won the Jury Grand Prize at the inaugural 2005 Adult Broadcasting Awards. If the claim of selling more than a million videos is correct, that suggests that ENTERTAINER#2 was met, and this suggests at least a weak ANYBIO#2 during her post-porn heyday (moribund channel now has 78 million views total, though current subscriber numbers aren't particularly special). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nomination seemed to take only old AfD discussions into account, not the current state and content of the article, which clearly passes WP:PORNBIO and others per Hydronium Hydroxide's observations. _dk (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Industry “awards” are handed out like cupcakes and no notable outside coverage. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards mentioned are not enough to establish notability. Beyond this there is still a lack of sufficient indepdent, reliable sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete technical sng passes ade worthless for a subject that clearly fails the gng and that is the best case here. The reality is the award isnt enough so there is no sng pass either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 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. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help Scout (Help Desk Software)[edit]

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

All of this article's 65 sources are either:

a. primary sources, b. unreliable sources, or c. trivial sources

A quick Google News search only shows things unrelated to the subject, trivial mentions, or non-trivial mentions without enough content to show notability is met. Note to creator: Creating your first article is a hard job. I can help you with it and introduce you some other aspects of Wikipedia as well. Believe me, it doesn't take a long time to be taught some of this encyclopaedia's basic policies, although it can for the minor ones. I hope this won't deteriorate your growth as a wikipedian. J 947 03:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up J (947)! I thought I was ready for the big leagues... I'll try to find better sources to buttress this article. Is it alright if we move it back to draft in the meantime? Clarse (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarse: I'm sorry but the point of this nomination is that right now the subject is not notable. The suggestion of moving to draft many editors would oppose so sorry, but no. J 947 03:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: Fair enough! Is there anything I can do to help stay the execution? If you google "HelpScout", more articles show up. Thanks for all the guidance! Clarse (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: 12 minutes between the article's creation and nominating it for deletion seems pretty harsh, especially given the incomplete/stub state of so much on here - why not give Clarse a bit of grace time to fix it, now that they are aware of the article's deficiencies?

As an update, I have removed all primary sources and unreliable/trivial sources. The sources that remain are from reputable websites that each have their own Wikipedia page such as G2 crowd, Product Hunt, Buffer (application), TechCrunch, Capterra, and Xconomy. I am happy to whittle down this list further, as a researcher I was honestly just worried about not having enough citations. I believe that this software also fits within the notability parameters of similar products such as LiveChat, UserVoice, and Desk.com. Clarse (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other such software has been mentioned in the past. I do not see this as less noteworthy than that software. Therefore, I think it is sufficiently noteworthy to stay on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topgunzurhero (talk • contribs) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Topgunzurhero, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. What you see is exciting to others only if you provide evidence so that they see it as well. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further update, I have added Fox News^[1] and CBS News MoneyWatch^[2] as references that directly discuss Help Scout. Clarse (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles directly discuss Help Scout. The reporter asks the Help Scout CEO for an opinion about something else (and introduces him by his job title for context). I suppose one could cite them as reliable sources for the name of the CEO, but these aren't the sort of thing that speak to Help Scout's notability. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/24/covering-your-ass-and-other-customer-service-mistakes-to-avoid.html
^ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/help-scouts-ceo-i-couldnt-do-my-job-without/

Delete -- a promotional, ref-bombed article. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Further update: I have removed all references that are not noteworthy. All of the remaining citations are from sources that each have their own Wikipedia page. While I might be mistaken, I do think that this is an argument for notability since this software is written about by reliable sources that are notable enough to pass Wikipedia's standards. Clarse (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are numerically many sources, they seem to be mentions in passing, of dubious independence (catalogs of software with functionality described presumably with language from the software vendor), plus social media individual reviews. Little evidence of notability. There just aren't enough independent 3rd party sources that would cover in sufficient detail to be able to have an article. Also per K.e.coffman. Finally, not sure why we need both this article and Help Scout about the company that makes it. Martinp (talk) 21:48, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pustule dome[edit]

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

This seems to be a term for a specific feature on a specific trail in the grand canyon. Despite the claim that is has been widely accepted by academics, there were no Google Scholar uses of the term in relation to geology, and the only other sources I could find for its use as a general term were either Wikipedia mirrors from the old version of this article that was deleted in 2008 or books from University of Northampton (where the term was coined). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an article about a not notabile neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. - Pmedema (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This appears to be a neologism that never gained widespread use, as the lack of sources available upon searches demonstrates. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:19, 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 no consensus. There's two sides here, with wildly differing views on policy, and it's the second tight nomination for the article in under four months. Although the last one closed as a keep thanks to a flurry of late !votes, I don't feel there's any real consensus on this and any nominations in the medium-term are likely to come to the same conclusion. If the right people look at this on the right day, it's a keep, and on the other, it's a delete. As such, I'm closing it as a no consensus. I'd also advise to avoid renomination in the immediate future. KaisaL (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla[edit]

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

I do not understand why this is here. kids go to buy drugs and get killed. killers went to prison. business as usual. I'm sorry for the families, but one of the foreseeable outcomes of buying drugs on the street is death.Wikipedia is not a memorial and this event does not rise to the level of notability required in WP:CRIME. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why it is here either, particularly because the previous AfD, well-attended by experienced editors, appeared to reach a consensus to Keep, (despite the SPA who weighed in with the final iVote.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was Kept per a AfF result as current as December 2016. The nominator gives a IDONTLIKEIT rationale without pointing out anything he find wrong with it. This article is well sourced and notable per WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was closed as no consensus, not keep. The closer noted that the delete arguements were stronger than the keep arguements. John from Idegon (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate. But that AfD stood at 9-4 favoring keep, several experienced editors had backed their keep votes with substantive opinions, and it had only been relisted once when the closing editor closed it with the comment "The result was no consensus."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing editor returned 10 minutes later and wrote "Just to add a rationale..." well,other editors can look at the old AfD, (where I opined Keep.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These two murders, while tragic as well as garnering publicity at the time they happened, was one event and does not rise to WP:CRIME. If legislation or ordinances had passed as a result of these murders, then that would help it rise to being notable. As it stands now, the article clearly fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic meets WP:N fairly easily. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:EVENT looks for enduring historical significance, widespread impact, coverage lasting beyond a normal news cycle. These appear to be lacking. A sad case. --Bistropha (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have to presume that you have not performed a simple Google search or similar before making this !vote. There are plenty of coverage that has lasted for a long time and it has had per sources found a widespread impact concerning the so diverse media coverage of this case.BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage was not routine, it was both extensive (national and British press) and lasted long beyound normal news cycle, with stories like [17] discussing it long after trial was over and sentences meted out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't sound like news to me. Drug-murders are, sadly enough, pretty commonplace in Detroit, and to be perfectly honest, this article feels like an implicit anti-Black Lives Matter article. Also..."The case drew attention again during sentencing in 2015 due to defendant's unrepentant attitude, yawning and shifting in their seats"? Really? I suppose I can get my own Wikipedia article by sitting behind a computer all day, editing articles. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. The reasons why a particular crime draws attention is not relevant here. Only the fact that coverage was widespread, in-depth, and sustained.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that some of the sources in the article (In Detroit, hiding bodies is easy; Williams, Corey . Journal - Gazette; Ft. Wayne, Ind. [Ft. Wayne, Ind]03 Aug 2012: A.1.) are not coverage of the incident per se, but, rather non-routine news articles that use the incident to illustrate a wider issue by using a notorious crime as an example. A Ft. Wayne newspaper is not local to Detroit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that a suspect's behavior and movements during sentencing guarantees a subject's notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus the Penner, Welcome to Wikiepdia, I see that you are fairly new here and it can take a while to learn the ropes. You might want to read WP:N, the gist of which is notability is gauged by coverage of an incident in WP:RS, not by our opinions of that coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News media noting that a video of perp ranting at sentencing "went viral" is WP:NOTROUTINE coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have reverted User:Cyrus the Penner's unexplained and undiscussed mass removal of sourced information form the article. As a relatively new user, Penner may not have been aware of the care that must be take to justify the deletion of information, or of the degree to which deletion of material form WP:RS such as the Daily Herald newspaper is frowned upon as bad form during an AfD, especially when done by a user arguing against notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- First and foremost, I am pretty sure Daily Mail is now universally banned as a source. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, first and foremost the overall consensus here is that the case has been covered by a diverse number of media. BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Daily Mail has been universally banned, though; that I'm sure of. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg, reading your comment leads me to believe you misread. I did not remove any Daily Herald source; I removed Daily Mail. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Intensity explained In case other editors are, like Nom, unaware of why this murder is regarded as notable, the fact is that despite the neutral wording of the article, the case came to national attention because it appeared to be a racism-related crime. For example, searching keywords Bobbish + Kudla + racist brings up coverage like this form Fox News [18], [19], PJ Media, [20], [[Gateway Pundit]: [21].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think users are overall not making the research themselves to make a good decision on this article. A simple search online and you see that this passes the guidelines needed. Plenty of coverage, national and international. BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did a lot of reworking on the article. A lot of things need to be simplified. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving an article is often a better approach than deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Still standing by my opinion that this article is non-notable and unnecessary, though. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. Mass removal of sourced material, details about crime, during AfD while arguing that case is non-notable is more problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I did not remove any sourced material. I merely rephrased unnecessary quotes and created sections. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, as a newish editor, Penner is unaware that his edits are visible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I don't understand what you're getting at. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT per Bistropha. BTW I have seen BabbaQ's response and don't find it persuasive. The coverage doesn't seem to have been lasting and in-depth - it hit the news around the time of the murder, and around sentencing. E.M.Gregory's point under "Intensity explained" is actually an argument in favour of deletion. The followup coverage has been fleeting, as examples in the broader context of purportedly racism-related crimes, not in depth as to continuiing relevant of this one crime. This is a very sad situation, but a single event. Martinp (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY This was a "high profile" case Parents Say Detroit Police Refuse To Charge Men Who Killed Their Son that received national coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think local sources alone guarantee notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in addition to news coverage, the case became widely known because it was covered fairly extensively by advocacy organizations including Accuracy in Media, Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt, and online outlets with large followings [[Gateway Pundit Black Man Who Tortured, Executed Two White Teens Makes ‘Black Lives Matter’ Speech at Sentencing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet these are unreliable sources you just cited... Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination in the first AfD: Routine capital crime with routine coverage for this kind of event. No substantial coverage since the conviction of the perpetrators in 2015. Sandstein 18:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once again, I had to remove content restored by Greg. Daily Mail is universally banned as a source, and Daily Caller is pretty controversial too. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:CRIME and WP:NOTTEMPORARY among many other reasons. Quis separabit? 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your usage of WP:CRIME seems to be wrong... Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyrus the Penner -- pls see Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts. Quis separabit? 02:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Then I'm assuming you meant WP:NCRIME and the above was an error. My bad. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nomination by inexperienced editor unfamiliar with AfD procedure. No prejudice against renomination. Jone Rohne Nester, comment on the content, not the editors. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babel (magazine)[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:A7 Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:A7 doesn't apply to magazines. – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stephen Fry has tweeted about the magazine to his >10 million followers: https://twitter.com/stephenfry/status/452380574268014592 ; The magazine's linguistic consultant is David Crystal, one of Britain's most famous linguists, see his Wikipedia article. As far as I know it is the only magazine with a linguistics focus in the UK and it is widely known and read internationally among language enthusiasts. Latikaakital (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Latikaakital: "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing" → WP:PROUD WP:COMPORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone Rohne Nester (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uanfala , this magazine is not academic journal. You should do more research, before including debate to list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . I would suggest you to do more research on academic journals vs "magazine for language enthusiasts". Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per initial nomination Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: striking duplicate !vote. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info to Keep comment above: There is a newspaper article that talks about the magazine: http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/film-voice-expert-brendan-gunn-8716067 "He is an enthusiastic reader of Babel, the language magazine first published in 2012 and co-edited by Professors Lesley Jeffries and Dan McIntyre at the University of Huddersfield. They invited him to give the inaugural Babel Lecture – marking the publication’s tenth issue – and Dr Gunn made frequent reference to key articles in the magazine, which has attracted contributions from many leading experts."
Keep per WP:GNG. There are lots of mentions on blogs – which by themselves may not be sufficiently reliable to establish notability – but combined with the piece in the Examiner and a couple of Radio 4 segments, as well as some passing mentions in books (e.g. this A Level study guide), I think it rises to the necessary standard. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Miller[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, as he has not yet appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in a fully-professional league. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is correct that Miller does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON, though a college football player can also qualify under WP:GNG. Here, however, I am not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independents sources, as is needed to satisfy GNG. Brief transactional announcements such as this do not IMO constitute significant coverage of the type needed per GNG. Willing to reconsider if more significant coverage is found. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet football notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Does not meet WP:GRIDIRON. Somebody can rewrite the article once the 2017 season starts and he has played in a match. Spike789 🇺🇸 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRE 2GS14B[edit]

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

I have initiated the deletion of this page because I have combined it with a like article on the 3GS14B. These articles were rather short, and were the same model of train, so the combination made a easier find, more complete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. @Bacon BMW: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The topic is clearly notable. If it's going to be discussed at NRE Genset Switchers instead of a standalone article then that's an editorial question. You're free to change the article to a redirect but the original article must be preserved for its attribution history. I'm not sure I like that NRE 3GS21B was converted into a general article but we'll leave that for later. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Spring Shopping Center[edit]

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

Fails GNG, not on National Register of Historic Places listings in Montgomery County, Maryland, so citation's veracity is unclear. South Nashua (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another non-notable shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Silver Spring Historic District includes a number of buildings I would consider suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, including the J.C. Penney Building (now the Fillmore) and the Silver Theater. The full application to listing as a State Historic Site is here. The shopping center as a shopping center doesn't seem notable, nor is it really part of the historic district. A redirect to the theater is possible, but not necessary, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This building complex gets its non-trivial coverage for the theater, which already has a Wikipedia article. The historic designation appears to be local. Only routine coverage as a shopping center. "Silver Theatre and Shopping Center" might rate a mention in the theater article, but not a standalone article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 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 08:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious democracy (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:CONCEPTDAB. Adequately covered by religious democracy (i.e. especially this section). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not appropriate as a dab page, and both items already are linked from religious democracy. - Station1 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is a CONCEPTDAB. A good policy that applies here and should really be applied more, in all honesty. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:12, 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) 17:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhardwaj Brothers[edit]

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

Spam. Limited claims to notability. Sources are either primary or unreliable and heavily promotional. All attempts at tagging or improving get reverted without explanation by article creator, who appears to be a serial spammer. Grayfell (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure promotion, just like the creator's numerous other articles, which have been speedied, see User talk:Arshlabbu. I have blocked the creator as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Quick source check shows a few more sources, but I still believe it is too sparse - if they keep getting coverage at the same rate, they'll probably be notable in 3-5 years. TOOSOON now. Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incuspaze[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unremarkable company. Sources are routine announcements, churnalism, or vapid boosterism. Part of an attempted promotional walled garden with Arshdeep Bhardwaj and Bhardwaj Brothers. Grayfell (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no good sources here. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Corp, Reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 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. KaisaL (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plusfranklin[edit]

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

No proper sources, dubious notability, self-written vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Also sources seem to be dangerous websites. At least my browser warns against the cited pages from talkmediaghana.com . Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this happened with me too, take care if you don't have good protection Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria even if the dubiously-sourced article claims it. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, including a Wikipedia article, and a YouTube page. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person, no mentions of any kind from any reliable sources therefore fails WP:RS and WP:GNG Zazzysa (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:37, 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 keep. Although there's something of a case to be made as to the 1995 date being arbitrary, there's a clear consensus that this has an encyclopedic value and should be kept. The 1995 issue is a content problem that may be worth discussing on the article talk page. KaisaL (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable websites founded before 1995[edit]

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

PROD was contested with a user simply asserting they thought "this list is valuable". The WP:VALUABLE section of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions says people need to give a reason for why something is or is not valuable, and the user didn't give any basis for how it has value. This is a blatant POV fork since "notable websites" is a highly subjective title, and Wikipedia is supposed to have articles with neutral titles and neutral content per WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks. Additionally, all details on website creation can be included on the sites' own articles instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a longstanding (created in 2006), well-referenced list with a clear set of WP:LISTCRITERIA. I'm not sure where the nominator got the impression that it's a content fork. It may be because the list was moved from List of websites founded before 1995 to Notable websites founded before 1995 last year. That was probably not the best decision, and it may be a good idea to move it back. - Eureka Lott 14:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long the page has existed is a moot point per the WP:ARTICLEAGE section of arguments to avoid (linked above). Moving this page back to "List of websites founded before 1995" would certainly make it more neutral, but these details still could easily be included on the sites' own pages. As Timothy mentions below, the criteria also seems arbitrary to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the list's talk page, it's not arbitrary at all. There were 130 websites in 1993 and 2,738 in 1994, but that number had grown to 23,500 by 1995.^[1] Expanding the time frame the list covers wouldn't be feasible. - Eureka Lott 16:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Total Number of Websites, Internet Live Stats

Comment - (edit conflict) This one's a little tricky. That the criteria for inclusion seems so exceedingly arbitrary is a pretty good argument in favor of deletion. However, there's probably a pretty good argument for retention if there is some obvious way that the list can be modified to be not-so-arbitrary. For example, modification to List of website founded in the 1990s might be perfectly acceptable. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary selection criteria. What is 1995? No reliable sources indicate the significance of this date. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is rather arbitrary, but is useful and interesting content and the saving for me is that it is not just an a-z list but is broken down into the year of going online. This makes unconvincing the argument that it should be deleted because of its title. A lot of the content is unreferenced, making the "notability" assertion for them unproven - but that is a content issue, or an article name issue. BTW, I've got a couple of ancient web-design books from the mid to late 1990s that may be useful as sources, since they mention many of these early sites as examples of up-to-date designs. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful history of the early web, properly sourced and reasonably accurate. The web turned out to be quite a notable invention, those who were very early adopters have notability in my opinion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-referenced article with a significant encyclopedic value. The individual sites don't give the same historical perspective. Notability can be determined by consensus using the already specified criteria (sounds familiar?). More importantly, 1995 isn't arbitrary at all. This year is widely considered in reliable and professional media as the year the dot-com boom began. The title of this article practically means Notable websites founded prior to the dot-com boom. The only valid discussion is whether websites started in 1995 should be included or not (which has nothing to do with an AfD). -- IsaacSt (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although perhaps it would be possible to have another name. Another possibility would be merging as part of a history article. It remains important that the sites be notable enough, implying that they also have articles, etc. Less notable sites should probably be removed, as there's nothing much to say about them according to reliable sources. PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More or less, the era of commercial control of the internet began with the decommissioning of NSFNET on April 30, 1995, making pre-1995 a fairly reasonable selection criteria, in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary selection criteria, like having a list about the New York Cosmos (1970–85) Siuenti (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather unusual position to take, since there are at least three lists about the team, and two of them are featured lists. - Eureka Lott 23:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's an arbitrary list selection criteria and is borderline WP:LISTCRUFT. The content could possibly be merged into another article that currently exists (or a new one) with a more appropriate criteria. Ajf773 (talk)
Comment there's quite a plague of these articles with arbitrary selection criteria, like List_of_Arsenal_F.C._players_(1–24_appearances). What's so special about 24? It certainly doesn't end in a 0. Siuenti (talk) 23:49, 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. Nomination withdrawn; consensus is there are enough sources out there to fix the BLP problem by normal editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lemigova[edit]

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

I am concerned about the ability of this article to meet WP:BLP. The sources present in the article are mostly tabloids or controversial works including the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and a search for sources brings back similar hits. I would suggest some of the claims in the "Private life" section do not meet WP:BLPSOURCES and should be removed. That leaves us with the reliably sourced claim of being married to Martina Navratilova, which is fine for a redirect / merge. I did this, and was reverted with a summary of "don't delete articles". Well, BLP says we sometimes have to, so here's a discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup, remove tabloids, OK, but a source like this is completely about her and only mentions Navratilova in passing. [22] this may help as well. She is notable for things apart from her marriage to Navratilova (the beauty pageant, the Edouard Stern affair, her own business) and while not the most notable person, I think she passes GNG by a fair margin. Fram (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Le Parisien was a tabloid, favouring pictures over content, but I'm happy to stand corrected on that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Le Parisien" is intended to be relatively low-brow and has more pictures than, say, The Times, but it is not a "tabloid" in the sense of a sensationalist, gossip-riddled paper. According to the French Wikipedia article, "Le journaliste Edwy Plenel juge que Le Parisien relève « d’une presse populaire plus exigeante qui n’exclut ni la rigueur ni le sérieux »35. Pour Gloria Awad, Le Parisien adopte plutôt une approche « rigoureusement factuelle, jusqu'à l'élémentaire »36." So independent opinions proclaim that the newspaper is rigorously factual and serious (in its approach to the news), which makes it in general perfectly acceptable as a RS for us (individual articles may of course always present problems). Fram (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability demonstrated. Good sources exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources exist If they exist, add them to the article - they won't add themselves you know! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability demonstrated. Needs work, though, per WP:HEY. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning the Soviet Union's foremost national level beauty pageant seems to be at the upper end of the pageant winner nobility scale.-Kiwipat (talk) 01:55, 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 keep. Nomination was withdrawn by nominator(as indicated at the bottom). (non-admin closure) Burning Pillar (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arizmendi Bakery[edit]

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

Per WP:AUD: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."

I cannot find any non-local coverage of this bakery. While there appears to be plenty of mentions and reviews from (primarily San Francisco based) local media, I couldn't find any regional or national coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. KQED and San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) are regional media. - Bri (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The New York Times Magazine had a 2014 about this bakery as a model of worker-coop success. [23]. A 2000 San Jose Mercury article on the same topic was syndicated by Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. [24] A GBooks search shows some book references of varying significance, some focused on the coop structure [25][26][27], some mentioning the bakery chain's culinary significance. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those look to be enough sources; withdrawing my nom. Thanks Arxiloxos! Sam Walton (talk) 21:28, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Male[edit]

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

This is a hard topic to search for coverage on, but anything I did find (including their "fair amount of media attention") seems to be local or passing mentions. Couldn't find anything to suggest this organisation is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - notability not demonstrated form independent serious sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable company and unambiguous advertising. Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:38, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred G. Wheelock[edit]

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

This article is replete with absurd claims of involvement in organised crime and unverified claims of inventing baseball equipment used around the world. Syek88 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete He's not notable, and most claims in the article are unsubstantiated. Had he been significant in baseball, as an inventor, or in the criminal underworld, then a search of his name would reveal much more than basic info (birth, death, hometown, etc.) at genealogy sites. Psychotic Spartan 123 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

del. Unverifiable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspended tension backstop about his unverifiabel alleged invention. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources involved are things like find a gave, which are non reliable sources. In this case find a grave contains assertions from this persons grandson that he had connections with Capone. What we would need is indepdent, reliable sources asserting importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Seems like nothing but WP:CRUFT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:40, 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. Author concurs (non-admin closure) — Train2104 (t • c) 21:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Carrington[edit]

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

Self-promotion, autobiographical (implied by creator ID), non-notable. Searches for the subject do not bring up any reliable sources and very few actual sources beyond social media profiles and mentions, particularly a very recent appeal for male underwear models. At best, it is too soon given that this seems to be a very new brand launch. At a future date, the brand may well achieve notability, but right now, it does not seem that it comes anywhere near meeting notability. Sorry. Mabalu (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Mabalu (talk) 10:40, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fashion design brand BOBBY CARRINGTON is trademarked on Intellectual Property Australia website - Trademark number 1822196 for menswear items- Apparel (clothing, footwear, headgear); Articles of clothing made from wool; Articles of clothing made of fur; Articles of clothing made of hides; Articles of clothing made of imitation leather; Articles of clothing made of leather; Articles of water-resistant clothing; Athletic clothing; Beach clothing; Belts (clothing); Casual clothing; Clothing; Clothing for sports; Clothing for surfing; Clothing for swimming; Clothing of fur; Clothing of imitations of leather; Clothing of leather; Cyclists' clothing; Denims (clothing); Furs (clothing); Gloves (clothing); Golf clothing (other than gloves); Jackets (clothing); Jerseys (clothing); Knitted clothing; Knitwear (clothing); Leather belts (clothing); Men's clothing; Pants (clothing); Ready-made clothing; Thermal clothing (not specifically adapted for protection against accident or injury); Thermally insulated clothing (not specifically adapted for protection against accident or injury); Thongs (clothing); Three piece suits (clothing); Waterproof clothing; Woollen clothing; Woven articles of clothing; Wristbands (clothing); Wristlets (clothing). I do not recommend the page be deleted. Adonismale 11:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I have moved this to the end of the nomination per WP style, as User:Adonismale put it incorrectly at the top of the page. In response to this copy-and-paste infodump, simply because a brand is trademarked doesn't instantly confer notability. Mabalu (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:SUSTAINED. It is even too soon for WP:TOOSOON Scr★pIron^IV 13:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional, no indication of meeting any notability criteria. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 13:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 13:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 13:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION ON THE GROUNDS OF PUBLIC INTEREST I object to this deletion on the grounds of significant public interest in the gay and lesbian community in Sydney, Australia and GLBTIQ communities around the world, in the fashion designer's work. This fashion designer served a public office as a police officer in Sydney's Surry Hills Police Station, widely recognised as Sydney's main gay district catering to large LGBTIQ communities and made significant contributions to the GLBTI communities in Sydney. He was also featured in Recruits (TV Series) - a police TV series which follows day-today life of a group of police recruits at NSW Police Academy and their transition into the NSW Police Force.^[1]^[2] Adonismale 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete Nothing in article to show this person is notable, and no mention of him found in a quick online search. The refs for the above claim that he is featured on "Recruits" don't actually mention him. The claim that he made significant contributions to the GLBTI communities in Sydney while serving served as a police officer might be useful if there is reliable coverage of that. Meters (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators and Editors: Requesting speedy deletion of this article; the author was not aware of wikipedia policies at the time. Caresque 00:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (previous username: Bobby Carrington)

{{Db-author}} Caresque 04:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural keep. Wrong venue. Take it to WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Motion Education Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are two independent sources mentioned, one with a "clipping" of unknown origin (and unreadable to me), one from Forbes India. This does not add up to notability. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Wrong venue as a draft article; this is something for WP:MFD. Nate • (chatter) 13:44, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Milošević and the educational system in Kosovo[edit]

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

Article is massive copyviolation from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1572/1/bachei1.pdf Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT as unsalvageable propaganda. I don't actually see a copyright violation involving text lifted without change. I wish in a way there was! What I see is a great deal of OR synthesis claimed to derive from two sources. There appears to be a massive amount pov wording, distorting significantly the content of those two sources for pov effect. For example, "...some concessions were made shortly thereafter. In 1969, subsidiary branches of the University of Belgrade in Pristina were converted into the University of Pristina." is in the text and is cited, and implies a "concession" that was nothing beyond a change of signage. However, the cited source says "subsidiary institutions of the University of Belgrade" were "transformed and expanded". That source is also specific that the demand was "clearly linked to separatist politics" - information the article conveniently (for its pov) omits. The degree of source distortion is revealed by the source's content (on p286) that the University of Pristina "subsequently played a prominent role in the Albanianisation of Kosovo’s political, administrative and security apparatuses" being rendered distorted and propagandized in the text as "played a pivotal role in the fight against Serbinisation". This sort of distortion is everywhere throughout the text to the extend that I think it is unsalvageable. The fact that the subject has but two sources makes it doubtful that it is a notable for an article even if neutrally written, and nether of the sources use the title of the article or are specifically about that subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not just propaganda, but trashy crap consisting entirely of original research. We are not a webhost for petty dictators. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, a POVFORK of Education in Kosovo. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could be better placed as part of other articles but it is not enough to be on its own.Stepojevac (talk) 21:13, 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 keep. Nominator was blocked by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisha Sharma[edit]

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

Dear The Template AFD i added is Explained, (AS RV) Which means reverted vandalism. The Person is not notable. Wikipedia Admins does not consider small/blog websites like Patrila News, India Today, Fuzion Show, TellyChakkar, Bollyhunt as References. These are are used there for reference. Hence it's wrong use of Wikipedia for Publicity. Thanks and I am Again Undoing the changes with valid description. PranshiKapoor (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unintelligible nomination, which does not explain "the policies and guidelines which are of concern". Nominator removed references, including the Times of India, which is a reliable source from the article at the same time as adding the AFD template. I have reinstated these references. - Arjayay (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nominator blocked as a sockpuppet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Itzik Kotler[edit]

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

This isn't a biographical article, it's an overly detailed CV -- and I'm seeing a reason for notability underneath the excessive detail. Calton | Talk 10:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is not NPOV and poorly written. The person himself is with some notability as a hacker and entrepreneur and has coverage in English [28] and in Hebrew [29] spanning a few years (also from before SafeBreach) both of himself and as a cyber expert on other matters (e.g. - [30] - on the theft of credit card information from a major IL issuer).Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like the company article this is likely WP:COI, but nothing in the article is overly promotional. The sources provided in the article and pointed out by @Icewhiz: above establish WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources have been found. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these sources seem fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 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 keep. The article is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illth[edit]

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

Ultimately, this is a dictionary definition. An amusing conceit but requires the confusion of a homphone. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a major philosophical concept. Production can result in an actual reduction in net material wealth. You might think it wholly foolish, but since it exists it needs to be recorded.--GwydionM (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep . Easy to verify used in numerous books, hence the article is expandable. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are expandable, some are expandable dictionary definitions. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is more than a definition. (And damn you, Arial font!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tempted to say that it should be at a lowercase title. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 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. CSD deleted. (non-admin closure) TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Hansen Olesen Bentsen Sørensen[edit]

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

Non-notable, joke article lovkal (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES[edit]

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

I'm not particularly sure what the focus of this article is. It seems mostly to duplicate the content in Adjective and Comparison (grammar), which talks about adjective degrees. The article is also mostly a WP:DICDEF with usages and examples. Laurdecl ^talk 07:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the article was a collection of cuts-and-pastes from various websites. I removed it all. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Previous content was a copyvio (and the current version has no content whatsoever), topic duplicates existing material. --Joshualouie711^talk 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all of the above. PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No content and no apparent context. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Rowe[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Two cited references in the article (reliability of either questionable) make only a mere mention of her, and a quick Google search shows no additional info that could be used as references. IMDb appears to be main source for the filmography, but looking at that, no stand-out roles. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with prejudice), as per nom – this subject isn't even a "guest actor": they're just an "extra". In fact, this one could possibly have been speedied under WP:A7 IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with respect to the above, she's a little bit more than an extra, but she doesn't yet meet WP:ENT. Not a comment on her talent or acting ability, and I'm sure that this article can be recreated when she gets some bigger roles and more substantial coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:45, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoFast Co. Ltd.[edit]

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

Taiwanese company. Article was created by User:PFprofile, and is apparently mostly sourced to press releases. For some reason, the user has created the page with a (broken) 'articles for deletion' notice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPA doing the usual WP:CORPSPAM, this one probably copied content from their prior article, now somewhere else on AfD here. Some reviews of the company products are not press releases, but nothing here suggest the company is important enough to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:46, 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 no consensus. Opinions are almost exactly equally divided. Sandstein 09:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SafeBreach[edit]

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

Non-notable start-up. Some VCs have given them money. And...? Calton | Talk 05:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Start-up WP:CORPSPAM, coverage limited to press releases and their reprints in business-like-usual-everything-goes trade journals like TechCrunch (who is soon going to report on "Big News! Someone sneezed at Startup X!"). We should delete start up articles on sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Probably too soon. It isn't all promotion coverage - but it mostly is.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haaretz and Globes are solid, reliable sources that are not known for publishing fluff or promotional material.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one. As Icewhiz notes, it isn't all promotional coverage; moreover, the sources in the article are not the most recent sources available. The Bloomberg snapshot of the company relays a February 2017 announcement of a "strategic reseller agreement with Hewlett Packard", which elevates this over the usual start-up (S&P Global Market Intelligence vets claims of this type submitted to Bloomberg snapshots). Companies generally originate as start-ups, in some sense; of these, many fold quickly, while this one has not. Not all the sources focus on venture capital funding. SC Magazine and Network Magazine sources all focus on methodology, and Venture Beat also addresses this. There is enough going on with this company to make it a subject that people will turn to Wikipedia to find out more about, and we should oblige those potential readers. bd2412 T 13:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are mostly press releases, which per WP:NEWSORG are not true RS. Plus looking at the creators contribution history [31], he has only created this page and the founders page, leading me to believe we have some WP:COI here. - Galatz ^Talk 13:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Likely WP:COI but not overly promotional. Despite the large number of reference about funding, there are three that pass WP:GNG - SC Magazine (written by the editor), Network World (written by the site's senior editor), and Venture Beat (written by staff writer). None are press release reprints from what I can tell. The headline for Venture Beat is about funding but it details more about the company in the article than it does about funding. Other reliable sources are Haaretz and Globes which as pointed out above would not publish promotional content. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already a number of good enough sources on the page. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well sourced and notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON -- just another cybersecurity tech company going about its business. The tone is promotional and the article cited to churnalism-like sources: about funding, product launches etc. This content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at this time and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of press/promo releases. Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zen hop[edit]

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

Non notable music genre, fails WP:GNG

The "Notable artists" listed in this article are:
"DJ Gami.K", for which there exists no significant coverage at all besides a bandcamp and a linkedln page
"Ryen Sol", for which a google search turns up zero results
"Aia Trio", for which a google search turns up zero results Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and no notability inherited or otherwise. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and there is no notability whatsoever MassiveYR 🌟 (TALK) 13:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one. GNG is a good policy here. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Fails WP:GNG. A search turned up a few random links to non-WP:RS sources, and nothing more. Narky Blert (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:47, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Jackson (Barbadian pianist)[edit]

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

The subject meets none of the notability criteria at WP:NMUSIC, and none of the multiple issues tagged in 2015 have been addressed. Patrug (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from nominator: The subject is a fine musician, but for the past year the only sources indicated for this WP:BLP are the subject's personal webpage, a five-year-old press release announcing a local church concert, and a self-posted YouTube video. The only WP:RELIABLE reference in the article's history, a Connecticut Post report with negative information about the subject, was deleted shortly after the article was created. —Patrug (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A good-faith Google search turns up little which could be used to expand the article, or any independent sources to verify what is in the article. --Jayron 32 04:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. No reliable sources found. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find much on-line in 2015, but tagged rather than nominated for deletion, in case there were dead-tree sources - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That Connecticut Post report, which I thank Patrug for pointing out, is probably the most detailed and independent information about Sean Jackson available. It confirms beyond any doubt that Jackson is not sufficiently well-known or influential to justify a Wikipedia article. Syek88 (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NMUSIC. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:48, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling With Wregret[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Primary sources and cagematch do not establish notability. Nikki♥311 04:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is dependent on the above article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage for either article. MPJ-DK 08:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be notable 86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nickag989^talk 10:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hard delete I love this show but yeah, it's totally non-notable.★Trekker (talk) 08:45, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Cave Club[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant lacking in-depth coverage. reddogsix (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Independent sources in the article seem marginally sufficient to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in Honolulu Magazine (four pages) and Daily Mail exceed "routine restaurant reviews" per WP:ORGDEPTH, providing in-depth coverage. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple Zagat mentions puts this over the edge for me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some of the citations were removed prior to AfD. See WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in Honolulu Magazine (four pages) and Daily Mail exceed "routine restaurant reviews" per WP:ORGDEPTH, providing in-depth coverage. In addition to Zagat reviews. Yankees999 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't usually involve myself with business or restaurant deletion discussions as thus is out of my area. Take my comments with that grain of salt. Since this is listed in visual arts delsort, I want to mention that having a Picasso work (the claim is neither elaborated on nor sourced) would probably fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. There are plenty of law firms or corporate offices that have original Picassos but that would not make them notable. Giving the article and sources a quick glance and taking into account the comments above, I'd say this is a weak keep in any case. freshacconci (✉) 16:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation was at the end of the paragraph, but I added a couple at the end of that sentence for that claim. If you are curious, there are several photos of the Picasso series online, including https://www.hawaii-aloha.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/VC2.jpeg and http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/02/2460C89D00000578-2894526-image-a-7_1420213374348.jpg Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I didn't see that. It's definitely interesting that they have it. freshacconci (✉) 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThose Picasso works are editioned lithographs: aka "prints". As in 972/1000. They get cited as paintings, drawings etc in many of the articles. The owner seems to have gotten great promotional mileage from what are pretty unremarkable lithos. There's obviously a huge business in marketing work by the most recognized name in the art business--do a search for Picasoo lithograph and you will see. The artistic value and notability of these works is highly dubious. Talking about these low notability lithos in the article is in effect giving the restauranteur more promotion. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 17:45, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bennett (wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable pro wrestler who does not meet WP:GNG. Article created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Dannys-777 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles which were created by the same user and are similarly non-notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Dannys-777 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dannys 777. Also, I would include Fabian Aichner, Clement Petiot and Alejandro Saez, all created by the same user. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about adding those three but they seem to have foreign-language sources which may indicate notability, if someone can confirm that they also fail WP:GNG then I'm happy for them to go too. Dannys-777 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable wrestler.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:50, 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. Merging is an editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Gowan[edit]

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

A very obscure ruling by a provincial court (not some supreme court decision), which has been referenced by one newspaper article the day after the ruling, one column, and a single passing mention (one or two lines) in a book (Google search revealed no other usable sources). Searching for "R. v. Gowan" 1998 or "R v Gowan" Ottawa returns less than 10 Google hits and no Google Books hits.

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NCRIME (there are even no Google hits at all for her full name apart from this article[32], we shouldn't be the ones revealing the full name of a BLP only "known" for such a negative case).

The article also contains incorrect allegations about Gowan (again a BLP violation), e.g. "as a result of her desire to test the limits of the R. v. Jacob (1996) Ontario court decision legalizing non-commercial toplessness": the source for this makes it clear that the police wanted to test the limits of the court decision, and choose the case of Gowan as a test case: Gowan herself had no intention of testing the limits of Jacob (or at least the source doesn't indicate this).

The inclusion of incorrect information on non notable (presumably) living individuals related to crimes and convictions is one reason why we have BLP policies and why we shouldn't have articles on such cases unless they are clearly (not borderline) notable, which this case isn't. Fram (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Legal Studies
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law

Per the above, it does look like this has received some coverage in relevant journals. Weak keep or merge and redirect to Topfreedom in Canada. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the precedent set in this deletion discussion where it was held that cases reported in legal journals or held as a precedent in later cases were notable. As per the sources in it and those mentioned above, it fulfills that criteria and GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD doesn't work by precedent, and where is the evidence that this case was "held as a precedent in later cases"? The first source, by Valverde, is a truly passing mention similar to the one in her book. From the abstract of the third source given, it is clear that the focus is on R. v. Jacob (which is a notable case) and another case, and not on the Gowan case. So, all in all, these all seem to be passing mentions, not "cases reported in legal journals or held as a precedent in later cases". Fram (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is about a court case not a person or a criminal act so WP:BLP1E and WP:NCRIME, respectively, do not apply. There are cited reliably-sourced articles from secondary sources (and other uncited material per User:Timothyjosephwood) and the article is not sensational. The existence of the article does not seem, to me, to violate WP:BLP. Edits may be required, and there may be a case for merging, but not deletion Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The case is named after a person (presumably living) not known for anything else, so BLP1E clearly applies. The sources about the case are (apart from one local news article the day of the court decision) simply passing mentions, not one of the sources (in the article or given here) focus on this case or even spend more than one or two sentences on it. The case doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the negative BLP aspects of having this article only add more reason to delete this article. See the WMF resolution on BLPs[33] point 2: "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". This seems to me to be such an article (and the fact that even with such a sensitive subject and such a short article, we can't even get it right, only strengthens the arguments to get rid of it). Fram (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably satisfies WP:NEVENTS:

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Per the law journal cites, pretty evidently a part of the litany of precedent setting cases related to female toplessness.

Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region Precedent setting for the province of Ontario, i.e., almost half of all Canadians, and apparently an important test of R. v. Jacob, which should probably also have its own article.

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The piece the day of the decision is pretty in-depth. The law cites contextualize the decision as it related to Women's rights in Canada, and demonstrate a lasting social and legal impact. While they may be short in length, they are not routine. Rather, they are experts writing on the topic of toplessness with regard to the law, and covering this among other cases because it is, among other cases, important to an understanding of the subject.

It's not the most important court case in the history of the world, but it doesn't have to be. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really must be looking at different sources :-) As far as I can tell, not a single court casse has named this one as its precedent, so it's hard to see why you describe this as a "precedent setting case". The "significant impact" for Ontario is reflected in the fact that one newspaper article was written on the decision, and then it was completely forgotten in mainstream journalism and mentioned a very few times in passing in law related articles. What actually was the impact of this "event"? A "lasting social and legal impact"? No evidence for this at all.

All your arguments apply to R.v.Jacob, which was a precedent setting case which was the subject of later articles and cases. That is a case, an "event", with lasting impact (still relatively minor, but clearly sufficient for an article if someone wants to write it). But to call the very few one- or two-line mentions of this case since its conclusion "evidence of lasting impact", significance, precedent setting, is really stretching things beyond what's reasonable. Fram (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm in the merge and redirect to "topfreedom in canada" camp. In the scheme of the topic, this is but a mark in the road. Notable enough to merit an inclusion in the article, but not enough to merit an article of its own. This article is little more than a stub, with a mere four sources, and a limited amount to be added which is specific to this particular court decision, as opposed to the broader topic of topfreedom in Canada. But I'm the first to admit I'm no policy expert. As to BLP, it does seem that this decision is public record, and the individual concerned specifically sought that publicity. Again, I emphasize that I have no expertise in BLP matters. Eliyohub (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some famous cases that were only heard by the trial court, and never appealed. This appears to be one such rare case, not so run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources seem sufficient, no prejudice against further actions after it is kept (such as merging to other articles), but I see no need to delete outright. --Jayron 32 04:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not satisfied that there's a clear consensus here nor that it'll come given we've had two relists already. KaisaL (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ngedikes Olai Uludong[edit]

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

Not a notable diplomat. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (this article has content that triggers copyright violation via https://portals.iucn.org/congress/update/18896 (Ex: She was also the Senior Advisor on climate change to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Maldives, which is the chair of the Alliance of Small Islands State (AOSIS). Olai is best known for her previous position as the Lead Negotiator for climate change for AOSIS under the Republic of Nauru’s chairmanship that ended in 2014. -- this entire segment has been copied and pasted from the aforementioned link)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted content has been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqin3 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:POLOUTCOMES says: Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable.... Ms. Uludong is Ambassador to the UN and EU, generally a cabinet-level position. Additionally, she has received coverage in WP:RS: [34], [35], [36], [37], which qualifies under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not "political figures at the national cabinet level". They are appointed civil servants and we don't have article about ambassadors, even if they serve multiple countries. The essential thing we look for non-routine coverage about the subject in reliable independent sources, which seems to be missing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eggishorn. I've added a couple more references to the article, as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable based on position and also per arguments above. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:27, 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) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable and significant coverage of important work. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work - I'll hit the categories in a bit - but she's an ambassador to the UN and to the EU. That passes the threshold to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and I don't see any good reliable secondary sources.

consilium.europa.eu Namecheck in a press release
sprep.org Primary source which seems to be affiliated with the subject. This is not a reliable secondary and independent source.
IPSnews. Alternative news agency, but the entire article is essentially quotes by the subject, making the source primary.
news.trust.org Not a news article at all, but a two sentence description. This seems to be like the Bloomberg "profiles"
oceaniatv.net Routine, brief coverage, the type we usually exclude under WP:NPOL. Also website seems dubious/self published
islandtimes.us 2 sentence routine coverage on a dubious, possibly self published website

None of this is significant coverage. Ambassadors or even climate change negotiators are not notable by default. If the subject is actually notable (given the claims about being an ambassador to EU and a climate change negotiator), there would have been secondary coverage for her contributions. But I don't see anything. Delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not cabinet-level government operatives. They generally just carry out what the government tells them. The sources do not demonstrate the subject of this article is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lemongirl's assessment of sources shows a clear lack of in depth third party coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think every diplomat is necessarily notable. But ambassador to the UN tends to be a rather high profile position as far as diplomatic postings go. Given that, I am inclined to think that any country's chief ambassador to the UN is notable on account of the position they hold. SJK (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider List of current Permanent Representatives to the United Nations and {{Permanent Representatives to the United Nations}}. We have articles on quite a few countries ambassadors to the UN already. Although Palau is a much smaller and less powerful country, I think consistency would imply that every country's UN ambassador is notable (by which I mean only their chief representative to the UN, not including any deputy ambassadors etc). Otherwise, where do you draw the line? SJK (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly a promotional exercise, even after removing much puffery, and the notability appears so borderline that it's unlikely that a substantial non-promotional article could be written. Sandstein 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl1942's research. Reyk _YO! 20:32, 31 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. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Premier (Ghana)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prod rationale: This person does not seem notable. The talk show he is the host of should have a page of its own before he does. Bensci54 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - we usually delete ordinary DJs, but this person is a radio talk show host who has gained some notoriety. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth articles about him. Not widely known. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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. Swedish sources indicate notability. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peshraw Azizi[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least two of the references in the Swedish version of the article meet WP:GNG. These are here (which is more than just a contract renewal notice) and here. Interestingly the one comments about "now that he is nationally famous". Not sure what that's about. Looking in Google News - this is quite substantial here. This here isn't, but might hint at why he's "famous" - looks like he was in Kurdistan during a terror attack. This looks as though it meets GNG here. Oh, this one is very strong here. Easily meets GNG. There's hundreds if not thousands of hits. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources presented above seem to indicate GNG through the provision of detailed interviews with the player and articles on him that go beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nfitz's comments, I have gone on google too and seen a couple sources about this footballer. What is needed now is that these are integrated and the article content is expanded. Article needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing on this guy that meets WP:GNG. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. At best you could merge him to Dalkurd FF. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are many reports about Azizi, but in Swedish. I don't understand Swedish. I wonder if the voters understand Swedish to discern notability. It seems he is the team captain. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers. The other references are just not indepth enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Sources does point towards notability. The subject also has a Swedish Wiki article which is in better shape. The article is short and needs improvement and expansion, not deletion. AfD is not a clean-up service and we dont delete articles based on its size or shape but purely guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG as per sources provided above.. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so just to confirm, Azizi does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as the team(s) he plays in are in the 2nd tier national leagues not the premier, ie. Superettan not Allsvenskan. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, however, the discussion is centred more around whether the sources presented above by Nfitz indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm satisfied that there's a consensus to delete per the !votes and comments made earlier in the AFD. KaisaL (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mag Wheels (film)[edit]

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

I tried to rewrite the article and turn it into a stub but it doesn't appear to be a particularly notable film either on its own or its cast. Fails WP:NFILM Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imdb list several 'external reviews' including Rotten Tomatoes which says "There are no critic reviews yet for Mag Wheels." Gab4gab (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I expanded the article a bit and added a few sources, but none of them are very compelling. One is a book co-written by the executive producer, another is a review from AllMovie, and the last is an entry in the American Film Institute's database. The AFI database entry is the most interesting, I think, because it lists several articles from The Hollywood Reporter in its bibliography. None of those THR articles seem to be reviews, however, and it looks like they're routine coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory listing with no apparent encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as allmovie and AFI sources allow a pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 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) 01:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, directory entries at AllMovie and AFI don't indicate notability, only significant coverage does. I'm not seeing that here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Lankiveil's correct, simply being listed at two movie sites does not indicate notability. Simply that the film exists. Unfortunately, the commonality of the name makes researching it very difficult. Could not find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cachar Congress[edit]

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

insignificant party floated by a faction that merged into another party. at best deserves a single line in any of the 2 party pages ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:45, 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) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insignificant, fails WP:GNG, and bad quality article too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burning Pillar (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding much of anything at all, even unreliable sources. That the Assamese article isn't any better, and there doesn't appear to be a hi.wiki article at all doesn't bode well for notability prospects, or the likelihood of finding substantial non-English sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 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. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Fung[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter does not meet notability guidelines, with a lack of reliable non-trivial independent sources referring to Jordan Fung. There is also a huge conflict of interest as most of the page is written by and created by Jordan Fung himself.220.246.180.78 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all advertisement-like content, adding magazine, newspaper, TV, and radio excerpts. I have removed the COI and advert tag. Hope this helps. 112.119.171.234 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some interviews with this 14-year-old entrepreneur, but the company Pedosa Innovation doesn't seem notable (it redirects to him), nor are his awards, recognitions, and competitions. Not seeing anything that justifies the article. Plus there's the COI concern. Timmyshin (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. He does have that one article, but that's it. The others are about the company. He seems smart and successful. It's just WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep due to winning an HK government innovation award (website includes extensive discussion of his work [38]) and having a mainstream publication interview him [39]. Deryck C. 18:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has recently been selected as the Global Winner of the World Summit Award 2016 [40] which is a highly-recognised award organised by the United Nations. Not to mention the media coverage (online, printed, TV, and Radio) he has. 45.64.241.175 (talk) 23:51, 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) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of now only one source meets WP:GNG standards. Since when do we allow WordPress blogs as source?--Skyfiler (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Only Way Is Essex cast members. czar 05:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Mecklenburgh[edit]

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

I really don't think this article adds anything to Wikipedia. The sources in the article are of tabloid standard, and a search for others reveals little other than the Sun, Daily Mail, and various other tabloids. This just isn't sufficient for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Only Way Is Essex cast members. I agree that there's insufficient notability for a standalone article. WJBscribe (talk) 17:30, 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) 01:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Only Way Is Essex cast members. There is no notability here and the redirect is a viable search term. - Pmedema (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As above. See is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 14:12, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hutton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jay Hutton

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

Seems to be famous for one program - Tattoo Fixers which IMO does not establish notability. Jack1956 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT. Has not been in multiple shows.104.163.144.60 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable. No multiple appearances. 31.55.25.207 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his role as a television personality is not significant enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. No coverage outside trivial tabloid gossip. AusLondonder (talk) 23:52, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Turbot (SS-427)[edit]

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

Ship was cancelled, should be redirected unless community believes its useful. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. I'm not a sub buff and just a layman, but I found this information useful today for a publication I'm doing covering the N. Severn Naval Complex (this sub located there for decades; it was a local landmark of some notoriety; this tiny creek (Carr Creek) is lined with public hiking trails from the adjacent public Greenbury Point Nature Center. The nearest WP feature, the Greenbury Point Lighthouse is no longer present, but the WP article remains. DLinth (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to class article. Brad (talk) 08:33, 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) 00:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well referenced article about a named ship of the United States Navy which is described in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Though never completed, this submarine was used for research purposes for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well referenced article about a named ship of the United States Navy.FFA P-16 (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to class article, never completed. Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Well referenced, actual ship. I think that never completed isn't the same as not completed to original specifications. Passes V, NOR, NPOV, and entry in NAFS is not trivial. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I wasn't able to find any particularly noteworthy sources for the submarine beyond those cited in the article, but I believe these sources are numerous enough and provide enough information for the USS Turbot to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 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 and redirect to Bill Viola Jr. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport[edit]

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

Previously deleted (under a different title, AfD here), brought back as a draft through WP:AfC, speedy deleted, and brought to deletion review where the result was to bring back to AfD. I am acting in a strictly administrative role here, and offer no opinion on the outcome of this AfD discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, for exactly the same reasons as last time, since this is exactly the same content. New "references" to the likes of amazon, goodreads, and the book's own page on google books don't change that a whit. —Cryptic 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. Non-notable book per Wikipedia's books notability guidelines. All of the reliable non-trivial sources in the article mention the book a single time in passing, usually in relation to the author (as in "Mr. Bill Viola Jr, who wrote Godfathers of MMA ..."). These references don't prove notability b/c per guidelines the book itself must be the subject of "non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." This isn't the case for all of the article's reliable, non-trivial citations. In fact, only two citations in the article are actually about the book itself, one from an obscure local lifestyle magazine and the other on the MMA Latest website. However, both of these citations are trivial, as opposed to book reviews in Publisher's Weekly, larger newspapers or magazines. Delete the article and simply mention the book in passing in Bill Viola Jr.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respected the consensus when this article was deleted last year and when I found more references and felt notability had increased, I recreated it and then requested publishing on AFC in good faith. These additions are the new changes I made [41] that are improvement on last time it was discussed for notability. Last time consensus was barely there 2 persons voting and deleting article so more clear consensus should be used now with this article which is with more references. The random editor SwisterTwister who published this article clearly also thought it was notable which is why he published so that should be used in consensus. Please evaluate all references I have inserted and also all the references that were present last time. All this combined can make this notable. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources noted when an established expert in the field writes something that is reliable. This book is reliable resource for wikipedia written by notable expert in the field. It is not only reliable for other articles as reference but it is also notable itself as it has received other sources on itself. Whatever wikipedia community decides, I will respect that again too but I felt notability is increased and this book article can be a useful encyclopedia entry which was accepted at AFC. If AFC and AFD will suppress each other, it will not be a very easy task to create good faith articles. MMA is a historical American sport and I think this is a major part of the wikipedia's existing categorization on MMA. Thank you. --Mietusr (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More: [42] [43] -Mietusr (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that Mietusr is a SPA focused on Bill Viola Jr and related articles including the one under discussion here.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to Bill Viola Jr#Author in lieu of deletion. I agree with the "delete" participants that there is not significant coverage of the book in reliable sources. But I recommend merging material to Bill Viola Jr#Author instead of deletion. The redirect should be retained for attribution purposes and because the book's title is a plausible search term. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 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) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge? Bill Viola Jr#Author already contains a more-than-adequate summary to my eye, and Special:Search/Godfathers of MMA already shows that article as the second hit after this one. —Cryptic 15:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging more material from this paragraph in the article:

The book chronicles mixed martial arts a decade before the term became popular or the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) was created.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] It details the Toughman (boxing) vs Tough Guy (MMA) controversy and the Tough Guy Law which outlawed mixed martial arts in 1983.^[7]^[8] Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport documents the sports early history, and legal issues with the Pennsylvania State Legislature and Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission.^[9]^[10]^[11]

References

^ "The Recruits". JB HiFi.

^ "Series 1 Episode Guide". Lifestyle Channel.

^ "Amazon.com: Bill Viola Jr.: Books".

^ Adams, Dr Fred; Jr, Bill Viola (18 May 2015). "Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of an American Sport". Kumite Classic Press – via Amazon.

^ "Bill Viola Jr".

^ Werner, Sam (June 24, 2011). “MMA roots were planted inNew Kensington”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

^ Benagh, Jim. "Toughman Boxing Brings Controversy: 52 Tourneys This Season." New York Times: May 18, 1981, C2.

^ "Tough Guy Law 1983 Senate Bill Banning Mixed Martial Arts MMA". 28 July 2015.

^ Latest, MMA. "A Review of Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport". MMA Latest

^ Cartey, Richard (November 2012). “Tough guy Contest: The Real Beginnings of MMA in America”. [www.fightersonlymag.com Fighters Only]. 3: 72.

^ Nash, John S. (May 23, 2012 ). The Martial Chronicles: Before Fighting Was Ultimate It Was Super, SB Nation

I support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect) so that the material is available for merging and the redirect can be easily undone if significant coverage in reliable sources surface in the future.

Cunard (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the original AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect There's nothing to show this merits its own article. It's a self-published book with only local coverage (and much of that is also not independent). It's already mentioned in the Bill Viola Jr. article so a redirect doesn't seem unreasonable, although I see no reason to expand that section of the Viola Jr. article beyond what already exists. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect book title to author's page Bill Viola Jr.. Despite the overstuffed sourcing, almost all of which leads to mere mentions, I can find no sources indicating or supporting the idea that this is a notable book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 30 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) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable musician. Sources are all self-published or passing mentions; a search for others is made difficult by many Steven Allens, but there doesn't appear to be anything. If delete, I would suggest the page is reappropriated as a redirect to Steve Allen (disambiguation). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:45, 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) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources. Appears to be a vanity page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:55, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arjan Brussee[edit]

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

Almost no significant, independent and reliable sources. The only source cited is an interview with a random software engineer whose career started thanks to Brussee. Hakken (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep founder of two notable companies and programmer of a notable computer game. Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up several results.
Metacritic
Shacknews
Gamasutra
Eurogamer
Destructoid
Kotaku soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - This is a difficult one, primarily because video game developers rarely receive much media coverage. G-searches are turning up press releases, interviews, and trivial mentions mostly about the games he has participated in the development of. The book sources found do seem to indicated he is respected in his field but most are one line mentions and are not enough to establish notability. The requirement for establishing notability is the subject is to have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The sources generated by the custom Google search engine in the WikiProject Video games/Source are useful for establish content in the article but may include sources that are not independent and not usable for establishing notability. Unfortunately, the sources listed above by user:Soetermans do not meet the requirements for establishing notability.

Metacritic - Per WP:QS "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." Also the WikiProject Video games/Source WP:VG/RS states that Metacritic is not considered reliable.

Shacknews - is a reliable source but the article content is provided by the subject. This would be a primary source and per WP:IV "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to are primary-source and not independent material" and per WP:Basic "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

Gamasutra - Article is a press release about subject joining EA Visceral Games. Press release are not considered independent "Non-independent sources - Press Releases"..

Eurogamer - PR announcement of the formation of Boss Key Productions. Subject is mentioned as the COO.

Destructoid - Blogs are generally unacceptable as sources per WP:USG.

Being a founder of a company or a developer of a popular video game in itself is not enough to establish notability as notability is not inherited.

I am open to changing my !vote if someone can come up with a couple of sources that meet the requirements to establish the notability of the subject as I have not been able to locate some. As an alternative to deletion it may be appropriate to merge the subject with Boss Key Productions. CBS527^Talk 17:01, 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) 00:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The need for notable/reliable sources is especially crucial here because this is a WP: BLP. As noted by CBS527, the sources we have here so far are not enough to meet notability guidelines, much less create an article which holds up to BLP standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:49, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Schlesinger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Autobiography written by subject. No references provided. His claim to WP:GNG may have been his establishment of Cuneiform Press, another article he himself wrote, but that's been deleted. His three separate accounts can be clearly seen in the history of this article: Kschlesinger, KyleSchlesinger, and Kyle Schlesinger. This looks like a long-term campaign of self-promotion to me. I don't think he's a notable person and I don't think his press company is notable. Daphne Lantier 18:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The outcome of the original AFD was sound. The fact that an editor subsequently removed the references supporting that outcome is not grounds for deletion. The subject's efforts in a hagiographic direction can be suppressed through ordinary editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Our nominator states: "I don't think he's a notable person and I don't think his press company is notable." Nominations for deletion are not supposed to be based on wikipedia contributors PERSONAL opinion on topics. We are supposed to rely on the opinions of reliable, authoritative source, on experts. And when an individual is an expert in a specialized field one of the factors that establishes that individuals notability is peer recognition.
In Schlesinger's case we have National Geographic choosing to quote him, and characterize him as an expert in his field. Our wikipedia article says he was picked to be the keynote speaker at a conference in his field. Being picked to be a keynote speaker helps establish his notability.
Nominator! If you are going around nominating articles for nomination, just because you PERSONALLY don't think those topics are notable, or if you are weighing in at AFD with opinions that heavily rely on your PERSONAL opinion -- well please stop.
There are lots of topics I, personally, think are nonsense. But I don't try to censor the wikipedia, and prevent others working on articles on those topics -- so long as they manage to do so in ways that comply with our policies and long-standing conventions. I expect other contributors to do the same. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very uncharitable way to interpret "I don't think he's a notable person." More importantly, our notability policy explicitly says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" so simply being quoted in an article doesn't pass muster. Nor does simply being a keynote speaker at a conference (hell, *I* have been a keynote speaker and I don't come anywhere close to being notable by Wikipedia standards). We need solid, reliable sources that focus specifically on this individual. Right now, we don't have them. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not require us to fail to take a nominator's justification at face value. Nominator explicitly asserted the nomination was triggered by their personal opinion that Schlesinger wasn't notable.
No offense, but your reply includes a common fallacy advanced in AFD. It is very rare for an individual to have their wikipedia notability established by one sole notability factor -- like winning a Victoria Cross. Practically every individual we consider notable has had their notability established by adding up multiple notability factors. You too have been a keynote speaker? Congratulations. And, if someone writes a wikipedia article about you, and someone else nominates it for deletion, you can rely on me asserting that it your keynote is a factor that helps establish your wikipedia notability.
All you said, in your first comment here, was that you thought Schlesinger didn't measure up to GNG...
Okay, which version do you think didn't measure up to GNG? Was it the March 2017 version? Or was it a more detailed version from 2009? Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the version of this article, following the 2009 AFD attempt, was in better shape than this version. It has been extensively trimmed. Okay. So I should be able to find the explanation for those extensive excisions, on Talk:Kyle Schlesinger.
Guess what? No explanation.
Was this vandalism, or just inexperience? I dunno.
Anyhow, I urge anyone who decides to take the time to weigh in here, to take a look at a version from mid 2009. Geo Swan (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should reference Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not the purported mindsets of discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotion. As per comment above, creator of page is subject of page (autobio) and they have three accounts as per - "His three separate accounts can be clearly seen in the history of this article: Kschlesinger, KyleSchlesinger, and Kyle Schlesinger." which is questionable. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable poet, writer. If the person truly was notable than someone besides the subject would have created the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clean up the references and reviewed the ones in the older version from 2009. There is very little to substantiate his notability, but I will note one review by Johanna Druckerin Afterimage (magazine) from 2006 that seems a real critical assessment of Schablone Berlin. Unfortunately, it's paywalled, so I have no idea how substantial that review is. As for the current citations, ignoring the dead links (I made an effort to find cached versions, but I can't find them):

muse is a primary source (interview)
amfm is a primary source (interview)
uhv is a primary source (faculty listing)
kaurab is book review in Kaurab with no biographical information about Schlesinger

The entire article hinges on two book reviews, but all biographical information comes from primary sources. As sympathetic as I am to letterpress publishers and book artists; that's not enough. We need significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, and that's not the case here. Unless better sources emerge: Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One webzine book review [44] (and another that might have something to say if someone can get past the paywall) is not enough, and none of the other sources from 2009 or now add much value. I don't think he passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, or WP:PROF. The three-account autobio aspects (maybe more than three; see contributions of Xy&g noted by Netherzone are also troubling. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thinly sourced with sources less than reliable... fails simplest of WP:GNG standard for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for people to post their autobiographies. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Keyes[edit]

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

Unable to determine notability. Fails WP:BAND. Can't identify albums, but possibly notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 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) 00:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage seems to be a one event deal about the band being challenged over a Batman trademark. He doesn't seem to have any coverage himself and even if the band was notable, it still wouldn't warrant an independent article for him. KaisaL (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting passing notice due to trademark disputes is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither he nor his band seem to be notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 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 and redirect to Green Line "E" Branch. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Square (MBTA station)[edit]

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

Proposed railway station that is, according to the source, at least 15 years in the future. The extension has not entered the state or federal funding pipelines, which would make it an official project rather than a wish-list item. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, there's no reason to have a speculative stub article that is a decade or more from ever needing expansion or having more sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Definitely WP:CrystalBall. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Green Line "E" Branch where the line-extension proposal is discussed appropriately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm inclined to delete. I question whether this is even a search term worth redirecting, and there's nothing to merge not already in the E Branch article -- which as a standalone paragraph regarding a line with over a half century of history, a good deal of press and ligitation, and many service changes, dings WP:UNDUE. We're not talking any initiative by the MBTA, we're talking something on a single municipality's wishlist going into a mayoral election. No doubt Hizzoner would enjoy sewing up the JP vote, but that doesn't equate to notability. Ravenswing 08:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - there's nothing to merge here. If Go Boston 2030 ever becomes something more than a red link, it should go there, but until then, point it to Green Line "E" Branch. — Train2104 (t • c) 19:44, 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. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaan Tharoor[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth articles about him. Has not written any books, won any prizes. Is not an expert. Fails WP:JOURNALIST WP:TOOSOON SW3 5DL (talk) 22:12, 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) 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:02, 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 redirect. While references were presented, consensus is that the coverage is tangental and not significant. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl ^talk 07:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rockefeller Jr.[edit]

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

Son of recently deceased financier David Rockefeller. However notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO, lacks multiple sources independent of the subject. Being mentioned in his dad's memoirs doesn't count. Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rockefeller family; he might not get enough independent attention outside of family affiliations to warrant an article, but is a viable search term, and can be discussed on the family page as well as his father's article (in appropriate detail, of course). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah I'd go for redirect too. Coretheapple (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The family is notable, so a redirect should do. Psychotic Spartan 123 14:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or 'redirect I just reached that page after reading David Rockefeller's news and the Wikipedia article and thinking who is the new family patriarch. Just thinking there might be some value in the existence of such description, and worrying if others can't find it after redirected. (Haven't been updating my knowledge on Wikipedia policies for years and no knowledge on the Rockefeller family, so I'm fine with whatever final consensus you come to. Busy to further involve in discussion though, just to type my 2 cents in case it worths anything to anyone. Sorry for being too lengthy.) akoo (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I'd say Steven Clark Rockefeller (David's nephew) as he is the eldest living male of the fourth generation (at least from John D. Rockefeller's branch with David, his siblings, and his cousins being the third generation). Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well given that there is unanimity for merger (and I concur with that result) I'd be happy with a snow-merge result. We're not "keeping" so I can't just withdraw this under the rules as I understand them. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I'm pretty sure you can only withdraw when there's unanimous opposition to what you propose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll withdraw it then. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored this AfD. An editor requested it, and since procedurally I'm not sure my closing was 100% kosher I don't see how I can say no. I presume that reverting my AfD closing is sufficient. I apologize for the confusion. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done some work on this article and I have added two references already. I took this weekend to do some more full research on his life, and the accomplishments in his career, if you might call it that, in philanthropy and his work to promote enviromentalism. He served on several different boards for the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). Of course, I am aware that notability is not inherited. For example, I read over the articles here for several other notable people that happen to be rockefeller family lineage members. One of Laurance Rockefeller's daughters became a physician, but also had great moves forward in environmentalism. I think her name is rockefeller waletsky. Not sure there are so many rockefellers. Look at the template at the bottom and you can see the lineage and generations down through the cousins level of eight of them alive. I believe this david is the eldest of the cousins still living. I will be add some more of the references I have prepared to the article on Monday. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as above. Looking over the references Antonioatrylia added, I'm just not seeing anything that establishes notability. Being a philanthropist and serving on boards does not by definition establish notability; receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources does. Ravenswing 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ravenswing if your logic regarding your comments here were understandable and reasonable, I might be requesting your assistance in putting together a mass/multiple AFD nomination in the near future. Thank you for commenting and discussing here. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing is right, so if indeed you know of other articles similarly lacking I would be happy to help as well. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks for the offer Coretheapple. What is the max number of articles that one could nominate? Please contact me at my talkpage. I do not want clutter this AFD. Please everyone pardon this distraction. I will work up a short list for us to work from. Thanks.Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:56, 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. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Willis (captain)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who fathered John Walpole Willis, a member of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It was deleted once as A7 earlier on March 21, but the second creation was declined for A7 because the individual had a notable son and it could serve as a redirect. Because of the disambiguator I don't see that as a likely search term or a useful redirect, and the subject otherwise has no notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criteria A7. Titanium Wolf (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED; fails WP:GNG.Burning Pillar (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTINHERITED, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of significance or importance. Don't see any value as a redirect either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN junior officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN junior officer; no references; notability is not inherited from his son. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:04, 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.

[1] ttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/24/covering-your-ass-and-other-customer-service-mistakes-to-avoid.html

[2] ttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/help-scouts-ceo-i-couldnt-do-my-job-without/

[3] Total Number of Websites, Internet Live Stats

[4] "The Recruits". JB HiFi.

[5] "Series 1 Episode Guide". Lifestyle Channel.

[6] "Amazon.com: Bill Viola Jr.: Books".

[7] Adams, Dr Fred; Jr, Bill Viola (18 May 2015). "Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of an American Sport". Kumite Classic Press – via Amazon.

[8] "Bill Viola Jr".

[auto1-9] Werner, Sam (June 24, 2011). “MMA roots were planted inNew Kensington”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[10] Benagh, Jim. "Toughman Boxing Brings Controversy: 52 Tourneys This Season." New York Times: May 18, 1981, C2.

[mmahistory.org-11] "Tough Guy Law 1983 Senate Bill Banning Mixed Martial Arts MMA". 28 July 2015.

[:1-12] Latest, MMA. "A Review of Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport". MMA Latest

[auto2-13] Cartey, Richard (November 2012). “Tough guy Contest: The Real Beginnings of MMA in America”. [www.fightersonlymag.com Fighters Only]. 3: 72.

[:2-14] Nash, John S. (May 23, 2012 ). The Martial Chronicles: Before Fighting Was Ultimate It Was Super, SB Nation

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]