Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 May	26 May >

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. The article will be moved to the proposed target. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joleuhn Yauhleih[edit]

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

Nominated by an unregistered user. Their rationale, taken from Talk:Joleuhn Yauhleih, is as follows: This article has no references. Delete it.2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC) clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Alan & Hacken as this is the act's formal English name.[1] The duo act has had enduring coverage since they were formed in 2004 (GNews). Deryck C. 12:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable duo in Hong Kong, widely covered in Chinese language sources. Kudos to Deryck Chan for adding sources to the article. --Dps04 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservancy Association[edit]

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

Nominated by an unregistered user. Their rationale, taken from Talk:Conservancy Association, is as follows: This article has no references to reliable sources. Delete it.2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC) clpo13_(talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale no longer holds, as the article now cites a book from a reliable publisher. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a bona fide conservation NGO which can be sourced. Qutezal1964 talk 07:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Major NGO in Hong Kong. Thanks Citobun for improving the sourcing to this article. The article certainly has enough citations in reliable sources to pass notability. Deryck C. 11:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Now has a number of reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are more than two sources that establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like all issues have been addressed now with the addition of RS to the article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Drawing[edit]

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

Nominated by an unregistered user. Their rationale, taken from Talk:Boys Drawing, is as follows: This article has no references to reliable, independent sources.2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC) clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boys Drawing is a central work in the history of Swedish art. For example, when Swedish National Heritage Board was asked to pick fourteen artworks to represent Sweden, it was one of those fourteen (source: Dagens Nyheter). (That probably shouldn't be in the in the article, though. It should be fleshed out in other ways.) /Julle (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs improvements and expansion. Not deletion. Clearly noted central work in the history of swedish art. for sure.BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also see and note that the article has been improved somewhat since the AfD nom was initiated.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Ramesh[edit]

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

No-notable author book yet to be published fail WP:AUTHOR .She is a medical doctor and being a doctor does not make you inherently notable. She being shortlisted for the Best Unpublished Manuscript in the 2017 Wilbur Smith Adventure Writing Prize and has not won it as yet WP:CRYSTAL and last but not the least can't seem to find a single source fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 23:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 23:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 23:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 23:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON —usernamekiran(talk) 00:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:gale search unavailing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet standard notability and a Google news search for "Nalini Ramesh" or "नलिनी रमेश" turns up nothing at all. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G3 by User: Bbb23. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurygaster confidens[edit]

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

The article appears to be a hoax since no mention of it is given on any website other than mirror sites of Wikipedia. No references have been provided in the article and the external link directs to images of bug species, none of which have any mention of this species' name. Furthermore, sources like [2] and [3] (mentioned in the external links of the article Eurygaster) have extensive information on species under the genus Eurygaster make no mention of Eurygaster confidens. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I searched and found only six species and this wasn't one of them. Who would name or describe a bug as "confidens" (wikt:confidens) anyway? Drzý(2013) (wikt:drzý) that's who. Debouch (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked in the taxonomic sources I normally use and none list this species, or the "cheeky" authority.Quetzal1964 talk 12:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely a hoax. Authority is fabricated, as is the species. Article text is essentially plagiarized from our article on the (real) Eurygaster maura. Unfortunate that this has lingered for so long as it has. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Definitely plagiarized. I was wondering how dedicated the person would have to be to fabricate details like that, but it looks like the hoaxer got lazy and just copy-pasted. This article seems to be on its track to become a candidate for the Wikipedia list of hoaxes with 3 years and 7 months to its name. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 15:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died on the appalachian trail[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTN, topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This list will be too broad. Just look at results of a google search of recent cases [4], [5], [6], [7]. These are just ones in the past few years. Think about how long this will get if you start going back decades. Given that there's over a million hikers on the trail annually [8], lots of people die of all sorts of causes. CutOffTies (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Esf13: has made several pages like this in the past week. Perhaps some coaching would be better than multiple AfDs for new pages? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another list that can't possibly become an encyclopedia entry. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a collection of news reports and self published sources about people who don't come even close to passing WP:BLP. Can't possible be encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL; lots of people, sadly, die from tackling long hikes. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Groovy 70s[edit]

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

Non-noteable radio show, fails WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Unlikely there are refs out there that can provide notability. South Nashua (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable self-promotion. See original editor's username. --Lockley (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN>Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Fox[edit]

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

Individual does not meet the notability guidelines and even a quick look through Google highlights the lack of reliable sources. The one BBC source is a video interview which is primarily clips from the individual's YouTube channel. This has previously been CSD'd with similar content, and the contest to the current CSD was invalid (another issue for another day) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC) *Keep While there is currently one source on the article. A simple google source comes up with a lot of responses. Reb1981 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On futher review with the lost of other reference. There is not enough to establish GNG. Reb1981 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me you're not referring to cruft such as "Frostsnow" (self described as "Frost Snow: Unique collection of Bio, Gossip and Article") and Famous Birthdays (with wholly unsupported claims such as "He was such a video addict that it got him kicked out of a private Catholic school when he was just 11)"? What the actual fuck is Wikipedia becoming if fan submitted and poorly over-sighted websites are used as an authority source? A simple google source comes up with a lot of responses - so does a Google search for the moon being made of cheese. Perhaps you need to spend some more time learning about what a reliable source is -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll spare the pejoratives. As to his getting kicked out of school and why, the man himself has said as much. knoodelhed (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's nice - so because he apparently said something it's a fact, right? I've moved your !vote to the bottom of the AfD -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @There'sNoTime: There is no reason to be insulting or even using profanity here. Expecically coming from an Admin. I was just on page trying to help the creator. It is true the sources are not perfect, but it still there is enough there to show something. I am just going to move on to my next project. Reb1981 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the contest to the current CSD was invalid Here we go again... I shall explain: the article claimed he has 3 million Youtube subscribers. I know of notable Youtubers with fewer subscribers than that, such as Angry Video Game Nerd. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct per channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDLmS9vkPcTz3cAc-c9QIzg he has almost 5 million. He also has a brand of scooters from searching https://www.tfoxbrand.com/ Reb1981 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And how many times do we say "number of viewers/subscribers is irrelevant". Unless it's record breaking. This is certainly not. And those other YTers don't have articles because of their followers or view count. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having millions of subscribers is an indication that the channel is well known and could have the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 Did I say it wasn't? No. But it's a crappy argument at an AfD, which is where we are. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It sounded as though your "number of viewers/subscribers is irrelevant" argument was about how it's not even a claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Here we go again"-- indeed. The newly created by a novice article is still in the process of sourcing and expansion. It might be better to wait until all souring and expansion efforts are complete before nomming here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly the article asserts significance. An article sourced from a RS asserts significance. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Significance" perhaps, but not notability, and that is what's required for inclusion. Regarding the "lot of responses" that Reb1981 mentions, Google results show one or two tabloid interviews, one local news piece, and a whole lot of articles about other people with the same name. If someone wants this to be kept around for improvement, then it should go to Draftspace. Regarding the CSD argument above, there is no point in arguing about the CSD tag here, as it's completely irrelevant to a discussion at AfD. If someone wants to argue about the tag or decline, there are other venues for that. Waggie (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:GNG significance is Notability. Plus citations have been added. Along with more information. Reb1981 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the poorly referenced, badly written, NPOV-violating, entirely un-encyclopedic toned statements and snipped out the references which aren't even in the same county as "reliable". I'm sorry, but I can't see how this article's subject is anything other than someone with a few snapchat followers and makes YouTube videos - I, along with I dare say the majority of people here, don't want to see Wikipedia filled with non-notable cruft -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Waggie and nom. Additionally, the fact that he has a business is pretty irrelevant unless the business itself is notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a news item from Channel 10 in Phoenix, qv. I think something's going to manifest in print eventually, maybe even the Union-Tribune. knoodelhed (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think something's going to manifest in print eventually - WP:CRYSTAL, cut the unverifiable speculation -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed frostsnow.com, famousbirthdays.com, and thefamouspeople.com as unreliable sources inappropriate for a BLP. I removed tfoxbrand.com as WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I detagged the thing and attempted rescue. The sources removed were the best I could find. The Crystal ball blurbesque coverage mentioned above is not sufficient. Not sufficient coverage for GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @Dlohcierekim's rationale, which I adopt. Quis separabit? 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met, even after a valiant rescue attempt by an experienced editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Reinfried[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO. Self-published aughot. No gNews hits at all.[9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, clearly promotional in intent. --Lockley (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promo piece about NN author of NN book. No significant coverage or impact.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Grim Trilogy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion. Non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly needs deleting as promotion of NN book by NN author w/o significant coverage or impact.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Booyo[edit]

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

No sources found to indicate it passes WP:GNG. Project seems to have abandoned as far as I can tell. Ko.wiki article is even shorter than ours and has no refs, so we can't use it to help ref our article. Ineligible for PROD as was AfD'd in 2005; that debate ended in no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was non-notable in 2005 and is still non-notable. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete keep arguments in prior AfD were specious. Clearly does not meet GNG. Governments stick there fingers into many pies. This pie is just not notable.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Quality Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "org spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non notable promotional article about a promotional effort that strains to assert some hint of significance and fails to do so. The hunt for RS is in vain Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made In The Shade Records[edit]

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

Article does not show real notability. They only have self published sources. The others that have been deleted make no reference to label. Reb1981 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON & A7 material; under two years old. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Maybe a TOOSOON. South Nashua (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The best I can find in terms of coverage is this interview; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 03:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not Notable. MassiveYR ♠ 00:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhiloSOPHIA[edit]

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

PROD'ed once before; this publication does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent sources, including academic citations. There's lots of sources written by the editors themselves, their own institutions, and their publishers, but none of that meets WP:GNG. —swpb^T 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Swpb prodded this last year and has now nominated it for deletion 40 minutes after I recreated it. We host articles on dozens of academic philosophy journals that no one writes about, but which are nevertheless well-known within the niche they serve. PhiloSOPHIA covers feminism and continental philosophy, and is one of a very small number of peer-reviewed feminist journals devoted to philosophy. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but is it notable? Oh, did I misunderstand you? We have encyclopedia articles, but we are not a webhost.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is WP:NJOURNAL which is the relevant test here, not WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNAL is an essay; WP:GNG a guideline. Hmlarson (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the nature of an academic journal means that finding a verifiable citation isn't enough; papers are cited all the time. Having press coverage of an article in the journal isn't useful either. Expecting the general public to be aware of it is an absurd threshold. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ I don't have any academic access to journals to see the context of any of the citations, but Google Scholar results show that multiple pieces published have >10 citations in other journals, which should be enough to justify keeping the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's also Philosophia (journal). I can't determine for certain which journal a paper was in without access, so I strike my vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:JOURNALCRIT 1 and WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that WP:JOURNALCRIT and WP:NJOURNAL redirect to the exact same page. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JOURNALCRIT is a specific section outlining criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - should this be renamed to its full name PhiloSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism per Google Scholar results? (similar to Hypatia --> Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy) Hmlarson (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets GNG and there's enough even for NJOURNAL. But NJOURNAL is a SNG to assist non-experts in assessing notability of something in that area solely, it is not a bar to GNG where additional coverage can assist in boosting a case that's on the line over the top. I take no position on the move for now, but that's an issue for when this AfD closes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability, meets the requirements of GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what exactly makes people think this is notable here. It doesn't seem to be cited very often, and here is only one source discussing the journal itself (Hypathia). I'll note that it's indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which isn't very selective, and the MLA Database, which I have no idea on its selectiveness. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, please stop removing the advisory board. This is a small feminist-philosophy journal, founded in 2011, and the advisory board is likely to be significantly more involved than in a more established journal. The page you keep citing is just an essay. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: this is really out of order. Removed three times, including since I asked it to stop. [10][11][12] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The advisory/editorial board is inconsequential and plays very little role in the day-to-day operations of a journal, and for this reason we do not include it in articles unless the composition of the advisory is somehow notable/discussed in independent WP:RS. There's no reason to deviate from standard practices, even if the journal is "small" or on "feminist philosophy", and there's no reason to treat it any differently than if it were a medium-sized journal of Polish history. See WP:JWG for details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll ask you to stop yourself, and use the talk page to make a case for why we need to deviate from normal practices. The argument that the journal is small and on feminist philosophy won't do much to convince people that this is a special snowflake journal that needs to be treated differently than others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a multitude of available sources. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyside United Methodist Church[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG: There is a single apparently reliable source offering significant coverage, and thorough WP:BEFORE uncovers no more. —swpb^T 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --do ncr am 22:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator): I'm not so sure your assessment is accurate. This church (which, BTW, has had a couple different names) is over 100 years old, and surely there has been coverage about the congregation's history, the building's architecture, and the programs and activities hosted throughout its history. In a scramble to try to save this article, I've posted some additional sources on the article and on its talk page. There is definitely some expanding that can be done already, and I've not jumped into the Oregonian archives yet. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB951434181293907823

http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=4358

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/feb/18/20000218-010915-1791r/

https://books.google.com/books?id=27qYztclSG8C&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ssQ6xxHzedgC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=p7nNBpEIrtYC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/12.0a.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/12/pdx_toy_library_to_open_in_sou.html

http://commoncupshelter.org/about.html (not secondary coverage, but does confirm program)

http://www.mccportland.com/ministry/hard-times-supper/ (not secondary coverage, but does confirm program)

http://raphaelhouse.com/donation/item-donation/ (not secondary coverage, but does confirm program)

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23444743.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63404173.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-59516356.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23444813.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23443312.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18964175.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23455599.html

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63330909.html

Langlois, Ed (June 16, 2000). "Sunnyside, neighbors work to resolve misunderstandings". Catholic Sentinel.

For some reason, I'm having difficulty logging into the Oregonian archives through the library's portal, but I'll try to do so again later to see if there are more articles available there. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, many of these will be passing mentions for memorial services, etc., but a search for "Sunnyside United Methodist" at the Oregonian archives yields 289 results, and a search for "Sunnyside Centenary United Methodist" yields 677 results. Obviously, I can't go through all of these right now, but I think deleting this article without completing a thorough source review would be irresponsible. I strongly recommend keeping this article; surely there are some helpful sources in this database for expanding this article longterm. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage not yet in the article includes about year 2000 land use issue about the church's "weekly outreach suppers", including

"More than 1,100 gather to protest land-use ruling" (claims to be the largest interfaith gathering in Portland, ever). And 2000 article in Catholic Sentinel "Sunnyside, neighbors work to resolve misunderstandings". --do ncr am 22:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Åsa Apelkvist[edit]

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

Not notable; this Swedish professor/translator at Bucharest U. does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator ElenaDimoiu28 (talk · contribs) has been notified of this discussion.

Note: Article contributor Awesomemeeos (talk · contribs) has been notified of this discussion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete until an applicable notability guideline is met. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qazzoo[edit]

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

I deleted this as a prod, but then restored it following a request on my talk page. Original concern was "Written in a promotional tone like an advertisement." SpinningSpark 18:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- obvious spam & no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baldly promotional and with no evidence of notability. --Lockley (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. the sources are not RS. no significant coverage found on google.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, and various considerations. (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harpalus subtruncatus[edit]

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

Nominated by Special:Contributions/2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA with rationale: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete It was malformed as they were unable to complete the submission. So, in a spirit of WP:IAR I am lodging the submissin on their behalf, in order to remove the faux-AfD templates from the article page within the week and not get a bot message/reversal. I note that the result of the discussion wil likely be speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT , and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, if not nominator withdrawal. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what relevance Wikipedia is not a dictionary has for the proposed AfD of this article? Any further explanation? Article is a stub yes, but it is for a named species of ground beetle and is appropriately described in biological terms. There is definitely an issue with this name referring to a synonym of another species in the genus Harpalus suggested here and here and the taxonomic nomenclature of ground beetles is somewhat changeable - but that is a wider issue for resolution within the articles and is not actually referred to in the initial AfD reasoning. So purely on being against the proposed reason, I am voting Keep. The in line reference is not ideal yes, but see WP:NEXIST. Taxonomic issues aside, as a species level article it certainly meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects#Criteria for inclusion . There are over 20,000 Stub class beetle articles so I'm not sure why this particular article has been flagged for deletion.Zakhx150 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zakhx150. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GBSFC 2017[edit]

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

No CSD for organised compeitions, but no sources online apart from a few facebook promos. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there is WP:CSD#a7 (organized event) and WP:CSD#G11. If those don't fly, Delete as not meeting WP:GNG after fruitless attempt to find RS.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:A7 - it applies to events such as this. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So tagged by me.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- deleted speedily byNytend Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Blitzstein[edit]

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

I am Aaron Blitzstein and would like to remove this page Marcello9999 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article mentions "nominated for two Academy Awards", but he was one of 16 writers listed for the 2007 Letterman writing nomination and the other nomination appears to be similar; neither won. The only article coverage I can find of him is [13], which isn't sufficient for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually the nominations were for emees, not academy awards. The academy awards are on the high end of selectivity, there are very few, emess are more common. I am not sure that considering he was part of a large development team it would really matter, but emee nominations are not a measure of notability, academy award nominations might be at least in some categories. There is also a derth of reliable sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Originally a promotional page and the only creation of original editor. Doesn't reach notability. --Lockley (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete utterly bereft of GNG, of RS, and is promo.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Adam Smith Institute. I would look forward to editors like E.M.Gregory taking the lead in merging the contents. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty League (UK)[edit]

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

This organisation doesn't appear to be a significantly notable organisation for Wikipedia. Although from my research I can see that it is real organisation that has organised events in the past, it doesn't appear to me to be that notable. There are no internal links to other Wikipedia articles (although I realise that only partly points to lack of notability. Seaweed (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough RS to pass GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not about what is in the article is adequately sourced, it is about whether the subject itself is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a little sourcing; it was a bit of thing in the early 2010s. Appears to have been a something of a young billionaire's political club. I am not certain that it still exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to mention this AfD on the Adam Smith Institute. I can see that the Institute is now running some of the conferences that the Liberty League used to run, perhaps it is a proper target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it is somewhat difficult to search because "Liberty League" + political keywords brings up the old American Liberty League, and just about any surname used in a search brings the Liberty League .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, that one of the 3 young founders of this apparently short-lived movement, Anton Howes, is making quite a splash with a PhD dissertation [14], probably already under contract with a publisher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor suggest relist; I have just added this to politics-related AfD list, hoping to draw attention of editors with some expertise in this sort of article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M.Gregory's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or a merge to Adam Smith Institute.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2017

So, as near as I can make out from news coverage and from sources like this [15] write-up by one of founders, this "Liberty League" was a short lived political movement formed by three students in Britain. It's most successful effort appears to have been an annual student conference to train/promote conservative ideology among students called the "Freedom Forum." Founder Anton Howes [16] was (or is?) a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute. And search on "Liberty league" "Adam Smith Institute" [17] shows that the two groups intersect ideologically. And that the "Freedom Forum" conference was run by the Adam Smith Institute after Liberty League seemingly ceased to be an active organization. "The ASI’s Forum, held on a Saturday in early December, is a one-day successor to the Liberty League Freedom Forum conferences, and like them, attracts over 300 guests, mostly students or people in their early 20s. It is very high powered, covering both esoteric and specialist topics as well, with speaks who are prominent, knowledgeable, and highly entertaining. It gives students a chance to network with each other and with the speakers." [18]. (search on "Liberty League" + "adam smith institute" + "freedom forum") [19].

I leave to others to judge whether this is enough justify redirecting to Adam Smith Institute and adding a sentence along the lines of , The Liberty League. a UK Student organization in the early 2010s founded by James Lawson, William Hamilton, and Anton Howes to support classical liberalism; it's annual Freedom Forum conference was later run by the Institute.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this solution.Seaweed (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chidera Okolie[edit]

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

Same notability issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidera Okolie, two years later. Possible COI. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete; the general lack of awards and connections that themselves have articles suggests that this BPL is, even two years later, still too soon. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 10:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs massive clean-up, but it is clear that she has received both awards and press. I made a start, but unfortunately in addition to the repetitive organization, the article creator had big problems with the citation templates and the source sites are unusually rife with pop-ups and in some cases are republishing others' words, so it will take a while to impose order on the article. But some of the references are under-used and appear to be reliable enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has won a number of awards and the article is being cleaned up and improvedAtlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep She is well known in Nigeria and though the creator did a near terrible job at his use of templates and irrelevant and duplicate references, the page had been improved. She has won a coupe of awards too. Some of the references, though bereft of international recognition, still prove she is exists as a Nigerian award winning author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.159.127.196 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

— 169.159.127.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. i do believe it is sock puppetry at work as they all sound alike and are of similar thought process.Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Yes, given that the article was authored, edited, and defended by a sockmaster, two sockpuppets, and a block evading IP address in the subject's country which is probably the sockmaster (Bbb23 may want to weigh in on that). I concur that the article: fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:INDEPTH; and is WP:TOOSOON. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Unfortunately, I don't know how Wikipedia works. I only come here to read articles but never thought of signing up. I was directed here when I tried to buy her book on Amazon by typing her name in on Google. My name is Chioma, I am Nigerian. I can tell you I am utterly surprised she has been included in a deletion page as the lady in question is a recognized author in Nigeria. She was even recognized by Guinness as one of the made of black heroines and has been endorsed by our ex president. Please do well to search her identity and profile on Google search. I think the references herein are not doing her justice and the creator of her page should kindly make the list longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiomaNika (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Keep My bad, I should have done my research properly before creating the page. I will heed to your suggestions and corrections. This however should not be a ground for delete. The idea is to recognize people carving niches and that is why I thought she deserved a page on Wiki. Yngvadottir Atlantic306 ChiomaNikathank you. All noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirabelIkwuebe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Strong delete as per what @JamesLucas said & article generally falls short of primary notability guidelines such as WP:BASIC & in her respect as an "Author" it/she fails woefully in WP:AUTHOR a case of WP:TOOSOON a policy very alien to new editors Celestina007 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: ChiomaNika is a Confirmed sock of MirabelIkwuebe.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside the awards, I don not think the subject satisfies WP:GNG and I see this as a case of TOOSOON. The subject and her book have not been discussed in details on independent reliable sources per WP:INDEPTH.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The awards surely are a sign of notability? In any case, I suggest we should consider cutting some slack here for someone working in a country where there are fewer available online news sources than in, say, the US or Australia. We should be wary of possible bias. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir Your theory, although slightly plausible does not apply here, as this article is written in a time when information technology is readily available and when reliable sources are in excess on the internet for Nigerians who are truly notable, if you asked me to defend that which i just stated by providing articles on Nigerians which contain a decent amount of reliable sources; the list would be countless. There are even articles on notable Nigerians who lived before the country receiced thier independence (1960) and these articles are really sound and furnished with numerous reliable sources so what then is the excuse of an article or its subject for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources when it is being written in this modern time? it's a simple thing really, WP:TOOSOON is the problem here and furthermore let it not elude our thinking that this is a WP:BLP and we know how important it is to wikipedia, so lets be sure to follow polices and guidelines to the core, furthermore as per WP:CRYSTALBALL we need references and sources to work here and in the event the two aforementioned requisites are not presented it is just too soon for the subject to own a stand-alone article Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that; clearly we disagree about evaluating the sources. But I really don't think there's a BLP issue; the article is based entirely on the sources and contains nothing negative. Remember, the encyclopedia has plenty of room; including this writer does not mean we have to exclude anyone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement is plausible (i do not dispute that) then again it comes to mind that it took a sock puppet with 3 accounts to assemble this page. i know good Nigerian editors (including @Oluwa2Chainz that !voted a delete) that take note of notable Nigerians and create their BLP's, but rather it took sock puppets in this case. Tell me that doesnt tell you something? @Yngvadottir || Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't entirely follow your logic there. The page was created by MirabelIkwuebe; I see only two minor edits by ChiomaNika (and I put a lot of work into cleaning up the page; I would attribute most of its deficiencies to MirabelIkwuebe's being new). In any case, if they are the same person, how does it indicate difficulty of finding sources if they edited the article under more than one identity? I also think it was unduly harsh to strike out MirabelIkwuebe's !vote here as well as that of the sock. The problem with sock participation in discussions is giving the impression of multiple people sharing an opinion; she still has a right to express that opinion once. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep "Fiction Writer of the Year at the Nigerian Writers Awards" seems sufficient for the presumption of keeping the article, and [20] shows that isn't a hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I agree with you that reliable source exist for Nigerians who are truly notable in the last few years, but the key word is that she is a writer. Based on GNG alone, if she was an actress, singer, sportperson, footballer, etc. I would have voted delete easily. I'm certain there are not up to five Nigerian-based female writers on Wikipedia. The point I'm making is that even though internet resources are now prevalent in Nigeria, there is still in a knowledge gap when you consider the areas being covered, and writers and novelist is one of such. I am not saying we should go against policy but we can not overlook her awards and being listed as one of the prominent Nigerian writers. In addition to the sources in the article, I found the following that show that she is still being covered by reliable sources in 2017. 1, 2. Darreg (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she exists, and is an award-winning Nigerian writer, thereby meeting the notability guidelines in WP:CREATIVE. The rest is a matter of improving the sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be well known in Nigeria, and recipient of various awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4(a) of WP:NAUTHOR, and by extension to that, probably 4(a): if she 'has received awards including Fiction Writer of the Year at the Nigerian Writers Awards and twice being named one of the most influential Nigerian writers', then this suggests that she passes the requirement to have 'won significant critical attention.' — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additional sources have been found. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Frederick[edit]

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

Article has cited no sources since July 2016 (possibly longer). It even states Frederick was born in Maryland in 1948, which is most likely false. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Googling the name leads to different people. In the absence of refs, not notable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added (one) reference. Writing the theme songs to multiple pop shows is sufficient for notability. ( amended Power~enwiki (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC) )[reply]
Delete. Googling "jesse frederick composer" offers a more comprehensive search than the generic name. His birth year mentioned in the nom is most likely correct, given the age of some of his credited TV work. However, there is no substantial "news" sources to cite from, and IMDb cannot be considered one. (Sidenote: the entire article was copypasted). — Wylie pedia 16:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSIC#10. There are lots of sources that verify that fact and the shows he did the themes for are major shows. Did need som major trimming but should be kept. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after further research, significant portions of the article appear to be plagiarized from the book titled "Everywhere You Look: The Unofficial Guide to Full House". I'm attempting to delete them. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror, mirror. In my view, that book (or at least the section about Jesse Frederick) has all the hallmarks of a Wikipedia mirror. According to Amazon.com the book was published June 15, 2015. [21] Meanwhile the Wikipedia article history shows that the text was largely written in a series of smaller edits (rather than by any obvious cut-and-paste) that were incorporated in Wikipedia well before the book. This comparison shows the relatively minimal changes in the text between the end of 2014 and the posting of the current AfD. So I don't think the case for plagiarism is established here. On the other hand, if the book is a mirror, it's not a reliable source, and it is difficult to identify other reliable independent sources to support much of the text. Frederick is a well-known TV composer with a number of important credits, but the article as it stands is problematic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh I did not realize that, thanks for pointing it out. Reverting some of that. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reverted all my changes based on that book. The content is still entirely unsourced apart from the intro paragraph. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few interesting links of varying reliability. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless the claims in the article are believed to be false, this is clearly a notable musician, both logically and per MBIO#10 and technically #11. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more potential sources: [31] [32] (not visible, but available in major libraries?) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the recently posted links.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been found as described in the last 2 comments and can be used to expand and improve the article Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eifion Wyn Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. No significant press coverage and no significant offices held. Rogermx (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an NPOL pass in and of itself — people get Wikipedia articles by holding a notable political office, not by running for one and losing — and the sourcing is nowhere near strong or substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he needs to win an election or have more reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other sourcing to indicate he meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Holmes (model)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. WP:BEFORE searching indicates no coverage of him as either a model or a runner, and the present sourcing reflects that, being composed only of blogs and Cosmo. The coverage he does have elsewhere is only passing references, with none having the depth or persistence required to pass WP:ANYBIO. (Note when searching- there's a few other unrelated individuals of the same name, especially a rather lively Minister). — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Half fast compliance with WP:Before. I already added a newspaper article you missed about his running. His website presence probably worth writing about. If somebody has access to Newspapers.com, it should be productive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; that local newspaper was seen. Part of the lack of depth and persistence I mentioned; same goes for WP:PRIMARY. I note he never seems to have won a marathon, or a medal. Thanks, though! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a frequent writer on the subject of Marathons and Ultramarathons. If you google Joshua Holmes Marathon there are lots of results. Inputting Joshua Holmes model, not so much. Likewise with Highbeam If you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer. GIGO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before attempting to understand one's answers, one should understand the questions one asks first. Accordingly, those results are: [33], [34], [35]. Almost no coverage in reliable sources, with very few even being about him, unfortunately. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES: we almost always delete male model articles. Bearian (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
whilst we can verify the subject is alive, unless he's a real life George Kaplan, we do not have significant breadth or depth or significance of coverage to show subject meets WP:GNG delete.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine stuff, nothing worthy of an encyclopaedia article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Isa Town. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan School, Bahrain[edit]

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

Notability issues. No coverage by WP:RS. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator please see WP:OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kudpung sir. :-) Yes, I am already aware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I think the content of this article should be added to Isa Town. I have already saved all the content (offline), if this article is deleted, I can properly include the contet there. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not uncontroversially merge? I found enough for WP:V (reports from cricket matches, use as a refuge during unrest) but not enough for WP:N. One advantage of a merge is that it leaves a redirect, which may satisfy students and parents, thus preventing re-creation of the article without WP:RS. A brief paragraph in Isa Town might not be WP:UNDUE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is good too Jack. I have no idea how it skipped my mind at that time. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Isa Town, as per WP:ATD-M. A merge can improve the Isa Town article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The much-cited RfD did not undermine this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau[edit]

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

I can't find RS's so it appears to not meet the notability criteria. Utsill (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes under CREATIVE for the reviews of her work. I've added the information to the article and cleaned it up. I hope Utsill will take another look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks better now, but could you be more specific in which reviews you think qualify her as WP:CREATIVE and which criteria she falls under? I see she has been mentioned in NPR and HuffPo, but those are commentaries, not RS's, i.e. news coverage. See WP:NEWSORG.The Boston Globe ref seems to just be a passing mention for an event blurb. Utsill (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope of her published works and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? My current impression is that it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see WP:NOTABILITY. Utsill (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for someone to justify this view. Where is the significant coverage in RS's? Utsill (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article has a number of book reviews by notable publications, footnote no. 7 of Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that "A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.", the reviews are not 200 pagers but neither are they 1 liners. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found some sources: "Our Kind of Cook: Colleen Patrick-Goudreau" - Laika Magazine interview, Vegan-Curious? Here's an easy 30-day Guide From a Noted Vegan Chef and Author discussion of Patrick-Goudreau's 30-day vegan challenge program - Miami New Times, "Think of Patrick-Goudreau as a personal vegan coach, and you just might have a new convert in your life." from 7 Books to Share with Your Veg-Curious Love Interest - short review in VegNews, here are a couple of awards: The 30-Day Challenge, a 2015 Independent Publisher Silver medallist, The Vegan Table, a 2009 VegNews Year of the Vegan Cookbook. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 4KUNIVERSE. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mancinelli[edit]

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

Prod removed. A quick Google search does not turn up enough independent, reliable sources to suggest this independent film exec passes WP:GNG. Article seems promotional in nature and the author obviously has a connection with the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough WP:RS coverage. All sources either no independent or not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4KUNIVERSE of which he is the founder and CEO. News articles are all in the context of his company, and hardly anything to support his personal life or notable work outside of that. Even his 40 under 40 is a listing. [36] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his production company. All the mentions that he received in media are because of that. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Tyler[edit]

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

Scene award fails pornbio and gng failure too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of coverage in reliable sources and a minor award so WP:GNG is not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best Non-Sex Performance is not a qualifying award, and borders on being a scene award. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Move target(if any) should be discussed at talk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marylin Star[edit]

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

Blp1e for a crime that had a minimal sentence, otherwise fails pornbio so is a blp fail. All there is to write is negative stuff of an insignificant person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the main coverage is BLP1E ( one event) which was not a news item that is likely to be lasting coverage.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources found by Hullaballoo, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*delete as non-notable criminal, non-nable actress. SIGCOV just isn't out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With at least four articles in The New York Times over a two-year span, at least one directly centered on her, post-prison coverage in the New York Post, discussion in legal reference books, Time, U.S. News and more, I don't think there's much of a question that she satisifies the GNG. The article should probably be moved to Kathryn B. Gannon; she's better known under her real name, and the more recent/more substantive coverage, like this Times piece [37], doesn't even mention her porn stage name. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The sources they mention along with others in the article satisfy GNG. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARP-SAPC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be promotional. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August Ames[edit]

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

Minor awards fail to meet pornbio and this blp fails the gng by a country mile Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No qualifying awards, negligible independent reliable sourcing, just promotional interviews. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Merrick[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ordinary business person. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly, obviously ProDable. Prod removed by anon w/ few other edits.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. Vanity article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Tan[edit]

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

BLP article which fails WP:BIO. Article created by SPA account User:Jrumali who has been blocked several times for edit warring, ignoring wikipedia policies and adding huge amounts of non sourced puffery. Likely a shill/paid editor or the person himself, the article has been pumped up with a massive amount of puffery, recently removed with almost no sources. Of the three source, 2, is invalid, 1 and 3 mention him by name. Zero notability. scope_creep (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited from being born into a particular family group, and coverage such as "Another younger son, Timmy Tan, is helping out with one of the family’s food ventures and running his own La Isla magazine for the family’s airline." (PhilStar 2010) is of that ilk. Google does have a couple of honours being awarded, such as tend to fall on the already privileged. I suppose the question is whether a professorship award from an "International University of Cooperative Education Niedersachsen" is notable? Surprisingly, Highbeam, which has decent coverage of Philippines media, is finding next to nothing (a name-check in a wedding anniversary guest list in the Manila Bulletin). I don't think there is enough here to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete utterly ProDable. Utterly fails WP:GNG Agree w/ AllyD. VAIN has been subsumed into COI, but yeah.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by launching this article into the sun. GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Workers[edit]

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

Non-notable TV stub that has barely been improved upon since it was created almost 11 years ago. Cindlevet (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It attracted media attention at the time, both with reviews and stories about individual patients featured. I added a small critical reaction section with some links. There is more if you google (which you are supposed to do before nominating.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep nominator does not seem to have done WP:BEFORE due dilligence. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now this is slightly in favour of deletion, and all the keep !votes were self-admittedly "weak". -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Batey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

lack of coverage to prove notability Mjbmr (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The other Lisa Batey's are notable however. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of significance or notability; run-of-the-mill YouTuber. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Sourced, barely passes notability, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2d 2k w/o nom
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She live streams herself. And, what...? I'm not seeing any suggestion of notability or impact. --Calton | Talk 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Luzon West Expressway[edit]

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

Purely a neologism based on the name of North Luzon East Expressway, without any reliable sources. No user in the Tambayan Philippines project have discovered that this is really a neologism. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 13:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 13:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by banned user.--RioHondo (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UnsourcedHariboneagle927 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I offically added "Semi-retired" template on my userpage, I won't still abandon from making small to medium editing here (I won't be retiring anyway hehe :) ) BTW, with regards to this "North Luzon West Expressway" (or should I say, "NLEX West"), I have found nothing to support this. One thing, there is no indication in the media (e.g. PHL news agencies) that STE, SCTEX, and TPLEX merging each other to become NLEX West, at least during this time. Another thing is that this "network" is not solely maintained and operated by one concessionaire. Both STE and SCTEX are operated by MNTC/MPIC (which is NLEX's operator, as per their articles here), while TPLEX is by Private Infra Dev Inc., so a merger to form "NLEX West" is highly impossible and unrealistic. I cannot say that this article should be kept, nor deleted, but to me, the NLEX West is an unrealistic expwy network, based on self-conceptualization and unfounded rumors. JWilz12345 (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the content of "NLEX West" is unsourced (I agree with Hariboneagle927), and based from edit history it has'nt been substantially improved since 2012 (except for minor changes/additions, such as adding expwy shields), in short outdated (it even refers SCTEX in future tense, despite of it being completed since c. 2012).JWilz12345 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More consensus is needed for this matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something that probably only exists in the mind of the editor that created the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn TimothyJosephWood 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RMIT School of Accounting[edit]

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

One of apparently a few dozen articles on schools within RMIT, most of which are sourced only to an annual report. See Template:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Not really seeing any reason why stand alone articles are needed at all, but gotta start somewhere. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No you don't have to start somewhere. This seems to be a substantial article with reliably-sourced content that is specific to the accountancy school, and which does not properly merge into a general article about the university. This seems appropriately split out. --do ncr am 22:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well whadda ya know. Good on User:NouvelleAuteur for turning this into an actual article. TimothyJosephWood 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The controlling policy here is WP:V. Content that cannot be verified in reliable sources mus be deleted from Wikipedia. As the nomination points out, and none of the "keep" opinions rebuts, neither the list article nor the articles about the individual regions contain references to reliable sources establishing that these regions exist as such. In other words, we can't determine whether these regions are not just original research by the creator(s) of the articles. Deletion is therefore required by policy. The outcome is however applied only to the list, because the AfD tags have been removed by the nominator from the individual articles. Sandstein 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of Mexico[edit]

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

Not an official administrative subdivision of Mexico. Furthermore no evidence of colloquial use with any set definition. Zero references since the inception of the article in 2011. Kippenvlees1 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following region articles to this nomination (see below): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)

And yet it would seem to complement Category:Regions of Mexico per WP:CLN. Moreover, Category:Regions by continent and country shows this to be a very common categorization scheme. And there is the massive navbox Template:Regions of the world, where regions like this are again grouped. It's not for us to decide how readers may best find articles -- it's up to them. Keep per CLN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the lack of sources, this feels hugely like WP:OR. It's indeed not up to us how readers may best find articles, but categorisations need to be valid ones. There are plenty of valid articles already in Category:Regions of Mexico, like Mexican Plateau and Yucatán Peninsula. As long as nothing on the page is verifiable, I don't think we should offer it on our encyclopedia. - Kippenvlees1 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's verifiable whether an article belongs in Category:Regions of Mexico, why wouldn't it be verifiable whether it belongs in List of regions of Mexico? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The big verification problem seems to be whether there are well defined "regions" of Mexico. None of the articles on the regions themselves seems to point to an authoritative list outside of WP. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - So long as the articles exist we should list (and categorize) them by what they are. We don't need an "authoritative list" if we can verify the existence of each article topic separately (e.g., has Northwestern Mexico been described as a distinctive region by reliable sources, etc.). And with such a large, geographically diverse, and historic country one would expect there to be notable regions that are both officially recognized and those that are unofficial only, with different borders or definitions depending on the purpose or standards applied at different times, just as there are in its northern neighbor ("Mexico has no regions" is a laughable statement, so it's a good thing you didn't make it). postdlf (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a keep, in case that's not clear. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It functions as a list of articles on regions of Mexico. The regions are notable (maybe with a couple of exceptions). "Region" (or its Spanish equivalent) may not be a term with a legal meaning in Mexico, but it's easily understandable by English-speaking people, and as a common descriptive term is a valid article title per WP:TITLE. It's verifiable if something is a region in the generic sense that we can establish if something is a named area of Mexico. You could attempt to define more rigid criteria if you like, but nothing alters the fact that this is a list of entities which most people would believe naturally belong together. MOS:LIST is purposefully vague about what belongs in a list, and what the function of a list might be, but this fits naturally into the idea that a list can be for navigation, such as an index or outline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
question Can anyone come up with some authority showing that this division into regions is real thing? Our articles, lists, and maps show it as a definite organizational level in which each state is assigned to a particular region, and the regions themselves follow the state borders. Having looked a couple of the articles, I see no evidence that this is so: the one reference that seems to be missing in every case is to some external authority which reproduces the list we have here. Without that, the whole scheme seems questionable and subject to deletion. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a content issue, not a deletion one; a question of how but not whether we should list our articles on regions of Mexico. I suggest WT:MEXICO for answers if you're finding the individual articles also not clear. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question is, "are these real?", to which the answer, were it "no", would bring about the consequence of deletion. I will go to the project in search of answers, and on some level I suppose this is going to be dealt with on a strictly procedural basis and the category kept for now. But the lack of curiosity is a problem in itself, and we aren't going to "improve" matters by carefully cataloging the spurious. Mangoe (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If your position is "all the articles listed here or included in Category:Regions of Mexico should be deleted because there aren't any regions of Mexico", then yes, that conclusion would be beyond the scope of this AFD. And that position, and your complaint about "definite organizational level", would suggest that you've failed to look at this list below the first header titled "cardinal directions". Again, whatever issue you have with the accuracy of that section is a content issue that isn't relevant to whether the list as a whole should be deleted. I'd also suggest you satisfy your curiosity not by focusing on the current state of the articles, but even just by doing some basic googling before proceeding further; Britannica, for example, notes that "Mexico can be divided into nine major physiographic regions", and, under the header "cultural regions", that "Specific cultural areas have evolved in Mexico because of differences in physical environment, ethnicity, and settlement histories, and few of the regions correspond exactly with the country’s physiographic regions." postdlf (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obviously there's no cited source at all and that is sufficient for deleting this article. Clicking through a couple of the linked 'cultural resources' shows individual towns without much cultural material to be found, which is dubious. The list of ecoregions seems a bit better until we click on List of ecoregions in Mexico, which doesn't match up at all, which is another sign of trouble. More deeply I'm afraid that @Mangoe: has this exactly right. We have been "carefully cataloging the spurious". In multiple articles, templates, lists, maps and categories, wikipedia is using an eight-part regional division of Mexico which is... entirely fictitious. It appears to have been invented by wikipedia editors around the middle of 2009. If anybody can point to any source at all I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Lockley (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the nomination: Based on the discussion above, and on looking at the history of these articles and their Spanish Wikipedia equivalents, it appears that this system of regions is something User:TownDown made up one day over in the Spanish side: some years later User:Hpav7 apparently unwarily copied these into English. There is also a article which is the apparent equivalent to our list article. Hpav7 seems to have gone more or less inactive about three years back; TownDown was blocked on several Wikis and eventually globally for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. The whole thing has spread over various languages who also unwarily copied the Spanish articles. If you look at these you can see that the references don't support this division— where there are references at all. Surely regional boundaries don't so neatly follow state lines on an official (looking) map, to the degree that people think of regions at all. Anyway, it's time for someone, if this is to be kept, to come up with authoritative sources. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to this book, northeastern Mexico is made of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas (pg. 88). I can find individual sources saying that Tamaulipas is in the "northeast", but from my understanding this is not an official division (not that that is a requirement). ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course we can have, and should have, a list-article on regions of Mexico. It is not a tiny place with no notable neighborhoods (which was a valid argument in AFD about a list of neighborhoods in some small Mexican (or Guatemalan?) town a while back). There exists Category:Regions of Mexico. See WP:CLN, which roughly is about the fact that if we have a category, then we can have a list-article; they are complementary. --do ncr am 22:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can we please read the nominations? The presenting issue is that the division into regions-as-distinct-groups-of-states appears to be a notion that appeared on WP first, as the creation of a single user. Nobody is denying that people may think of some regions or other of Mexico, but the way it's presented here is extremely dubious. The category and list depend upon the region articles; indeed, the latter stands in for the overall article in the Spanish WP, so as far as I'm concerned it needs justification in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read the whole list, the whole corresponding category, and read the whole discussion? Even assuming the eight region articles you've tacked on to this nomination above all merit deletion (about which I have no opinion, as I don't read Spanish), that doesn't take care of the whole list nor its potential; just the "cardinal directions" section. The solution then is to edit this list to remove anything that doesn't belong. Use a scalpel, not a wrecking ball. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say that adding eight articles to a nomination already over five days old is not the best practice for clear discussion and results. Particularly where the articles and the originally nominated list are related but not mutually dependent. You should strike it out and nominate them separately. postdlf (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too bureaucratic. Assuming the deletions go through, we will then have to repeat this. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close without prejudice to an immediate relisting. The edits to this AfD by @Mangoe: have basically rendered this AfD null and void. How is anyone meant to judge a consensus when you - who aren't even the original nominator - have added another 8 articles to this AfD at such a late stage? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be a straight keep on the list, as that part of the nomination has had full discussion, but procedural close regarding the added articles. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this edit, editor Mangoe "reverted" by deleting their addition of 8 articles, and deleted comments by several editors. I reverted that edit. Hey, I'm not sure what's going on, but it seems possible Mangoe that you want to ~~strike~~ stuff, but don't delete others' edits and don't simply remove stuff which disconnects others' comments from making sense. It may be that Mangoe is right about something fundamentally here, I am not sure, and it may be that process is bureaucratic, but we have to follow some process to eventually get somewhere. --do ncr am 21:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to hell with it It was bad enough to do this all once; I'm not doing it twice. Keep the stupid category, for all I care. Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest Metro Line M7[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, the line is not yet in a state that allows an encyclopedic article to be written. The most recent plan document for Bucharest transport, PMUD, mentions several possible scenarios for this line, including replacement by tram (LRT7). Strainu (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If there was a generic article on expansion plans of the Bucharest metro, it might be a merge candidate; I don't support merging to Bucharest Metro. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Packy (musician)[edit]

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

The article and most of its references are about the band, not the individual member of the band, but neither is notable yet per WP:MUSICBIO. The band were briefly signed by a Sony subsidiary, which never released anything from them. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from some local coverage from their hometown paper. Evident WP:COI by article creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be mistaken. First, for half of his career, he operated under the name of a band, but then later had a name change to become just "Packy". They are not two separate entities, but one which has undergone a name change. So, it makes sense that much of his page, just like much of his life, is under a band name. Second, I have no conflict of interest, as I have never once seen or spoken to Packy in real life. He does not employ me. He does not pay me. I am not a family member or friend. I am solely a fan of his music. Third, their music HAS reached the Billboard charts (see here, here, and here). As far as I can tell, per WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, this fulfills the second guideline about having music on national charts, which includes BillBoard charts. SpeckHelper (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)SpeckHelper[reply]

Delete - I largely agree with Uncle Roy, this is borderline but I'm leaning towards it fails WP:MUSICBIO. There is limited coverage in the local paper for them but not enough to justify notability. -- Dane ^talk 21:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane: Doesn't charting on the BillBoard charts account for notability? The second item in the list for WP:MUSICBIO says charting, which includes BillBoard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeckHelper (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpeckHelper: Currently the article mentions the iTunes charts, not Billboard (although I see the links above, they need to be in the article to be relevant). Also, I would argue that it's still borderline as that's for the ensemble and not the individual rapper. -- Dane ^talk 22:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane: So then if I wanted to make a page regarding this rapper, would it be best if I made a page specifically for the label that pushed out this music (and list Packy as an artist that is a part of the label), as technically they have had their music reach the charts, and not this rapper by his current name? SpeckHelper (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpeckHelper You wrote above:

"First, for half of his career, he operated under the name of a band, but then later had a name change to become just "Packy". They are not two separate entities, but one which has undergone a name change."

But that's not what the article says:

"For much of his childhood, he grew up in a neighborhood called Groesbeck. He and his friend group nicknamed themselves "The Specktators", which he and Moe-T would eventually use as their stage name."' ... "Packy began his musical career in Lansing, Michigan operating under the group name, "The Specktators". The musical duo was formed by Packy and his brother, Matt "Moe-T" Duda."

Now it's true that I somehow missed The Specktators charting on Billboard before nominating this article for deletion, so what I wrote in the nomination rationale above about that band also failing WP:MUSICBIO is wrong in that respect. So per item #2 of WP:MUSICBIO, there's a case for an article about them, with Packy (musician) redirected to that article. We could move this article to The Specktators, and edit it accordingly to be about them, with a mention of Packy's subsequent solo work. Uncle Roy (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle Roy: Ok, that sounds fair to me. Also, just for technicalities sake, under "Life and Career" and "2014-Present", I did write this:

"On June 11, 2014, Packy and Moe-T announced that they would not be using the stage name, "The Specktators", anymore, but instead would use that name to create their own independent record label, "The Specktators Collective". Packy would perform under his nickname, while Moe-T would become the CEO of The Specktators Collective. This was done so that the duo would have the opportunity to sign their own artists and to promote Packy more efficiently."

I'm still learning about making pages on Wikipedia, so how should I make the page? Should I just paste over all the old work from Packy (musician) to the page for The Specktators? I'd love to get your opinion on how I should handle this. Thanks!

No, we should move the page, please don't copy and paste to the new name. And we need to wait for the outcome of this discussion first, to see what other editors think, before doing any page moves. Uncle Roy (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Insufficient depth and breadth of coverage. Mostly sourced from Instagram and shall we say a source connected w. the subject. what independent sources there are are still insufficient.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG not met. If you have to write your own Wikipedia article, it usually means you don't meet the guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who tie-in websites[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this about a year and a half ago. It received a handful of keep !votes entirely based on WP:AADD and little other participation. It was eventually closed as no consensus. Quite a while later, it's still a great big pile of OR and primary-sourced fandom. I don't doubt there's content that may merit mention in the various articles about the shows (or other of the many articles on Dr. Who), but this is not an encyclopedic list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree as it stands this is not really a Wikipedia article. I think deletion is a legitimate option, but I also wonder if it might be possible to re-write using sources which discuss the websites as promotional/tie-in material for the series in 2005-2007. Alternately some of the better content could be merged into the story or series articles the website relates to. For instance the Deffry Vale School could be added to School Reunion (Doctor Who) and Leamington Spa Lifeboat Museum to Doctor Who (series 2)

Delete -- unsourced original research and a linkfarm (note all of the external links in body). No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename.

I basically broadly agree with the "comment" above. As it stands, the article is not good. However, considering whether "it might be possible to re-write using sources which discuss the websites as promotional/tie-in material" is spot on. That is exactly what I had in mind when I said that the article needed an overhaul in my comments on the article for deletion page in December 2014. As that would be the best possible option, I'm voting keep. I don't see why Wikipedia should aim for less than the best possible option.

Speaking of that discussion on the article for deletion page from December 2014, I'd like to direct people's attention to that, as all the arguments which I made then still stand.

Other options mentioned by myself back then, and now by the comment above, include merging some of the content with television series or television episode articles. While I don't think that this is the worst option (the worst option is probably deletion), I also don't quite see it as the best possible option. I don't see where the protection would come from the future editors who wanted to delete each section from each article because it didn't quite fit.

I still actually think that the Torchwood story should get its own standalone article. It included exclusive video segments featuring the main cast, so it is hard not to see why that is not being given more prominence.

I just think that if you got rid of the list of websites, and instead focused the article on the narrative of the stories that the websites told, and linked it to the marketing of Doctor Who, then it would be a decent article. Redv Blue 16:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to address any of the issues or reasons for deletion. The questions are whether it's a notable list (whether these tie-in websites, as a collective concept, receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject) and whether there's any usable content (based on reliable sources independent of the subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have answered the questions that you want to ask, but I did not come here to do that. I came here to express my opinion, and I think that I've made it quite clear what it is.

I've already said that the article should not be a list. I am just highlighting the fact that there are other options that could be considered, and other discussions that could take place, instead of just repetitively submitting this article for deletion.

I'm actually a little taken aback that you are telling me that I haven't addressed the issues that you talk about. Should it not be the other way around? You have now nominated this article for deletion twice. I'm not sure, but maybe, before the second nomination, there may have been an opportunity for you to think about addressing other people's issues, including mine. It would be good if you could propose some solution to these concerns, such as including information about the stories on other articles, or a new idea. Or should the last trace of them be wiped out?

I just feel as if we have jumped straight into another deletion discussion before all options are explored openly. Redv Blue 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have answered the questions that you want to ask, but I did not come here to do that. ? AfD is where an article is nominated for deletion, a rationale is given, and people who wish to keep the article either argue "that is not a valid rationale for deletion" or "the claim that it [is not notable, is original research, or whatever] is not accurate". A keep argument that doesn't address the deletion rationale isn't actually engaging in the deletion discussion (or, I suppose, it's arguing along WP:IAR lines). The keep arguments at the first AfD were almost entirely based on WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and various other WP:AADD. Quite a while later, nobody has shown any inclination to explore any options or make any improvements, so I've renominated in the hope that this time there will be consensus (one way or the other). If it's closed as keep, I won't be nominating again, certainly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one of my sentences as if I have done something wrong by saying it. What that sentence means is that a deletion discussion was opened regarding something which I have an opinion on, and I came here to express that opinion independently of your points. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If, because I have done things that way, you feel that you should disregard my opinion, then you may of course do so.

However, I am not entirely sure how else was the best way to express my opinion, given that, as far as I am aware, the only discussions about this article's future have been in the form of these deletion discussions where the context is only ever about whether to delete the article or not. In these discussions there have been viewpoints raised that there could be other options for the stories from the article, but the only place for people to raise these issues has been in the context of deletion. Redv Blue 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one of my sentences as if I have done something wrong by saying it. - Sorry to make it seem that way. I use {{tq}} as a way to being clear about what I'm responding to (using it again here as an example, not to be a pain). Thank you for clarifying that your comments should be considered independent of what I said in the nomination (and/or since then). In saying that you haven't responded to the reasons for deletion, I don't mean to say that you must do so; only that when the discussion is closed and admins/closers assess arguments, they're typically doing so in relation/starting with the reasons given for deletion, so comments that don't address the reasons for deletion tend to be discounted. Do with that what you will. I'll go ahead and leave it at that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far, far, far too detailed for Wikipedia. These websites are basically marketing campaigns, and they aren't notable as marketing campaigns. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MAYBE it would fit in on a Doctor Who fansite, but neither the level of detail or even the topic itself fits here. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already outlined above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Badminton Federation[edit]

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

Not notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article already passed WP:GNG. Stvbastian (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After Stvbastian's addition, the article is now notable. I will work on it to try to make it better, at my best.

I hereby request to terminate/close this nomination as Keep. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recently added sources are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Federation Baseball[edit]

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

Not notable. Has been on wiki since June 2014, yet no notable event/milestone has been added. Search on internet provides nothing. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable organisation. Fails WP:ORG. Ajf773 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been expanded with multiple references (compare that to Baseball Federation of Japan and Baseball Federation of Cuba which cite zero sources). - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced additions discuss about Men baseball team, and women team. Both the teams have separate articles. Subject of this article is still not notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the recent additions which look reasonable. Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent good looking additions aren't related to the article's subject. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hadeed recovery vehicle[edit]

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

No RS. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to an archive.org image of the source (which would be reliable)[38], the vehicle was developed but not necessarily that it entered production. I don't find any evidence that it ever did. An alternative would be to redirect to APC Talha. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete though it is listed at Jane's, there needs to be more depth and breadth of coverage to be included here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met - did the vehicle enter production? Does anyone use it? Who knows - there aren't any sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shown to be notable for stand alone article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Datex2[edit]

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

Has had issues since 2011: It is still unsourced with (what I can see) no available online sourcing and does not indicate notability. There are no plausible redirect targets. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete' negative function on fxSearch_RSDlohcierekim (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unlikely to grow beyond a single-sentence-stub - subject isn't notable. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Comedy of Errors. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy of errors[edit]

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

The article is a stub that has never advanced beyond WP:OR since its creation. It purports to describe an ancient genre, although it fails to discuss its development. The majority of examples given are unreferenced modern trivia. The two references given in the lead apply to individual plays and do not establish that such a genre exists. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 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 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that it seems to be corrected. — Paleo Neonate — 07:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:Chachob (reason: article creator). — Paleo Neonate — 07:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:Comedy of errors. — Paleo Neonate — 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 07:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is not an orphan (Special:WhatLinksHere/Comedy of errors), cleanup may be required if it is deleted (or it may be sign of notability). — Paleo Neonate — 07:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on Shakespeare's play, which from a quick random look at the pages linking to this one seems to be a more plausible destination for many of those links. Per the article, the term itself appears to be an alternative name for a farce (and that article may also be a sensible redirection, more so if the play didn't exist). Any information contained here not within the article on farces should be merged that way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Shakespeare play. There's no material beyond Wiktionary [39] for this as a general term. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without further ado. This would be a dictdef at best. The existing article appears to regard 'comedy of errors' as a theatrical genre. The non-Shakespeare stuff here is not worth retaining. --Lockley (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geist Group[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, no notability and no claim of notability. Somehow it survived for seven years. The website and Youtube channel it was about no longer exists as far as I can tell. KarlPoppery (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, they have one video on Youtube... ~~I've put a CSD to not waste anyone's time. KarlPoppery (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:Havocbean (reason: page creator). — Paleo Neonate — 06:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:Geist Group. — Paleo Neonate — 06:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 06:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 06:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 06:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 06:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If the result is delete, File:GeistGroup.jpg becomes orphan. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Not enough material can be found to assess notability. — Paleo Neonate — 07:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am unable to find significant coverage. There is a homonymous law group in Indiana that I see more of. Was unable to locate the cited article. In any event, that by itself would fall short. Two links seemed to be about a "ghost detector". They, of course, do not treat the subject meaningfully if at all. The youtube presence falls short as well. Plenty of G-hits to sift through. Let the search continue. "Not enough material" is a sound deletion rationale, but falls far short of "speedy deletion". Perhaps the dearth of information will lead to WP:Snow. Perhaps someone will locate coverage I have missed.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rational for CSD and speedy was that there isn't even a claim of signifiance. It's a group that did one non-viral video and stopped (six videos according to the article but they can't be found). KarlPoppery (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh /> Someone detagged. Anyway, there are G-hits to sift. Not that I expect anything. But one should be thorough. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as badly failing WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Expired WP:BLPPROD. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox 2wx[edit]

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

Seems to be a quintessential garage band article (except about a solo artist rather than a band). Despite all the claims in the article, a search couldn't verify most of the said claims, nor did the search reveal enough coverage in reliable sources. The two awards mentioned in the article come from institutions that don't appear to have Wikipedia articles, and in any case don't appear to be notable awards either. The article also reads like a promotional piece. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There appears to be slightly more coverage for the artist under "Spike La Rock", such as an interview with Reverb Nation. It's possible that more coverage exists under that name, but I'm keeping this discussion open to see if consensus determines that those hits are enough to establish notability. Even if the article is kept, it probably needs a major rewrite to remove the puffery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That's an invalid reason for deletion without doing a BEFORE search. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Coffin[edit]

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

Completing AfD for User:Mfernandez77, whose rationale was: An unremarkable politician. Position far too common and with no significant contribution to society as a whole. Few sources with little to no nobility. Would consider accomplishing something before Wikipedia inclusion. ansh 666 03:43, 25 May 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 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL says that state assembly members are notable. "He was previously a Democratic member of the Nevada Senate, representing Clark County District 10 from 1987-2011" Power~enwiki (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Power~enwiki and NPOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, academic and non-winning candidate for political office, which is written with a decidedly advertorial résumé slant and referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. As always, none of her three job titles confer an automatic notability freebie on a person just because she exists; she must be the subject of adequate reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, and the writing tone must be neutral and encyclopedic, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is referenced. The comments below speak to potential benefits of editing the tone of the text, not to deleting the content. Deletion would be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:50B:1FFE:81A4:5913:5557 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 2620:22:4000:50B:1FFE:81A4:5913:5557 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article is referenced to primary sources that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media. It takes the latter kind of sourcing, not the former, to get someone included on here. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promo, almost entirely OR, with no acceptable sourcing, of a recently-minted PhD. The SPA account that created this article was unsuccessful in creating a companion article on the subject's husband...which matters only indirectly in that it suggests the either vanity or promotional purpose of the article. Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. One book with only 22 cites on GS. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As a lawyer, she does not have sufficient factors to pass my usual standards. As a politician, she fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. As an academic, she's not tenured, so fails WP:PROF. Combined, I don't even see how she passes WP:GNG. Please, convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many, many reasons (GNG/PROF/WP:NPOL) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's Walk: A Story about Autism[edit]

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

minor book with minor reviews only , very minor publisheer DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I'm not sure how many reviews we should be expecting for a children's picture book, but I would hope our expectations would be proportionate. Children's literature for those with disabilities has to be a fairly small subsection. With that being said, the book has received a couple of awards: Dolly Gray Children's Literature Award, Children's Crown Gallery Award Master List, and the International Board on Books for Young People's Outstanding Books for Young People with Disabilities in 1999. The book is carried by most major distributors, Chapters, Barnes and Noble, Scholastic, Amazon, and sits on the recommended reading list by numerous public libraries and organizations. I don't think it's our best example of a book that meets our notability criteria, but I think it gets by. There are a few more reviews out there that aren't listed in the article like this one and this lesson plan about the book by the The Museum of disABILITY History. Mkdw ^talk 04:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mkdw, it's not the type of book that will ever be seen on the NYT Bestseller list, but within its genre it is clearly sufficiently notable, particularly given the additional sources mentioned above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty recognized enough (per sources in the article and what Mkdw found) to satisfy our notability requirements. LadyofShalott 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have peviously said there is a tendency here for accept stories that are sufficiently pathetic ; the guideline is not anything to do with notability, but NOT TABLOID.,and I should have worded the AfD that way. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - maybe I am not sufficiently caffeinated, but I'm not clear what you are saying here. LadyofShalott 18:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That looks like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice to know that a project administrator feels stories of autism are "pathetic". ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of RS Reviews for this article to pass CREATIVE. If anyone has access to EBSCOhost, you can also see that the book is reviewed in other journals I don't have full access to, including Booklist (1998 vol 94 issue 15) and Catholic Library World (2004 vol 74, issue 4). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reviews in reliable sources are enough to satisfy notability guides. ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable. I guess I don't understand why this was brought to AfD if the issue isn't notability. If this was really written like a tabloid, that is an issue for editing and not deletion. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 British Overseas citizen#Future of British Overseas citizenship. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Shah[edit]

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

Although the subject's stay in the Nairobi airport lasted for some time, this is ultimately a WP:BLP1E. There's been no continuing coverage since he was given British citizenship. agtx 21:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this event was interesting and lasted a while, Mr. Shah is low profile. I'd suggest a merge or redirect but I'm not sure where to send it to. Mytildebang (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to British Overseas citizen#Future of British Overseas citizenship. In addition to BLP1E, most of what was mentioned in the article was already succinctly summarized in the redirect target. --Dps04 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Welker[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Most refs are not independent (interviews with subject). Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article created by SPA. MB 13:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Do Not Delete Did you read the article? There are 7 citations from viable sources. This is not an article which should be included in a deletion conversation. Your notations are entirely subjective. Please include at least 1 specific example of a policy violation.

Our arguments for why the article should be deleted are not subjective. It's not a matter of policy violation, Welker just doesn't seem to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to Wikipedia, whoever you are.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment author should try to enhance the article Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage shy of what is required to meet WP:GNG in terms of depth or breadth. There's also an interview and something written by the subject. The things smacks me as being overly promo. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promo. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while creation by a SPA editor is not grounds for deletion, it does lead to the creation of promotional articles like this one. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Loewen[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Has not played at the highest level. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NHOCKEY, meets WP:GNG. He became the second Jamaican-born hockey player after Graeme Townshend to play in the NHL for five seasons. AaronWikia (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Loewen absolutely does not meet NHOCKEY; he's a 19-year-old third-liner in the juniors who could have been drafted a year ago (and wasn't), and I suspect won't make the pros without some serious improvement, so I'm at a loss as to figure out why anyone would think he was a NHL player, never mind for five seasons. The Sportsnet cite is a good one, but it's the only valid one in the article, so, @AaronWikia:, if you found other qualifying sources in the search you made to assure yourself the subject meets the GNG, could we see them please? Until one crops up, I'd have to advocate Delete. Ravenswing 04:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Kamloops Blazers aren't part of the NHL, and one story in sportsnet.ca isn't going to satisfy GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY and can't find multiple sources on him to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found this article, that may or may not help. I am on the fence about this guy. Hopefully the Sharks get him to come to camp again this year and he gets signed.18abruce (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a blog so it wouldn't. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless NHL is playing high schoolers. In 2016 he was the "left wing for the Kamloops Blazers." Fails to meet NHOCKEY. And he certainly does not meet the GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG not met, and no junior players meet the applicable guidelines at NHOCKEY. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bear attack. There is clearly consensus that the content of the article is unsuitable, and since none of the delete !votes were opposed to redirecting it to Bear attack, which does mention that some attacks are non-fatal, I'm redirecting it there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfatal bear attacks[edit]

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

Considering the attacks were not fatal, I don't see this as notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is just silly as written. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The items are not talked or listed as a set in notable sources, so fails WP:LISTN. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have a perfectly good article Bear attack and anything important could be merged there, but there isn't anything needing merging. This looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:POVFORK, but I don't want to speculate further as to the creator's motives. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple WP:LISTCRUFT. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly, spurious, non-encyclopedic trivia. ValarianB (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this WP:LISTCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate listcruft. Also, it doesn't include the time a Scottish co-worker of mine fought off a bear with an umbrella while hiking in Japan. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Ashley[edit]

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

Horse has only won Grade III races and no other indicia of notability for other reasons. Typically, per NHORSERACING, a horse needs to win a Grade I race to create a presumption of notability or else have other significant coverage to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - does not meet notability. Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Moreso, I'm more concerned in the OP response for keeping a stub article by merely have the minimum for WP:GNG. I think there has to be more to the article for it not to be deleted. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability, only won Grade III races, I'm another equine wikiproject editor. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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