Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sengipatti[edit]

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

No indication of notability. – Matthew - (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable. I have cleaned up the article and added a source. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The place is also in the news as the proposed site for an All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Jupitus Smart 14:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. Can we close this and stop wasting everybody's time? Smartyllama (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a village with over 4,000 people is an indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 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} 04:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Morgan[edit]

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

This page seems to be self-promotion for a non-notable individual according to Wikipedia's rules. One of the two sources is her own website and the other is her employer's. This is my first time following this procedure so please forgive if I have done it wrong. Lbr123 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC) chan[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), and can't seem to find reliable sources on her, She fails basic GNG. FITINDIA 22:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 22:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 22:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's findings. Welcome to AfD... we need more people willing to work here. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the page is actually well-written for a new posting, and so I feel the accusation of promotional intent is a bit unfair. That said, very much a case of WP:Too soon, I agree with nom on the notability per an uninspiring google search. Although with her zeal for her career, she may be notable soon - she literally let herself get bit by a poisonous snake for a PSA bit (wow). Yvarta (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but this is a local reporter in the 127th largest media market in the United States. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 5 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) GSS (talk|c|em) 08:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra S Trivedi[edit]

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

Appears to be a mid-level bureaucrat of no particular import. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary the article states that he is a sitting member of the state legislature as well a member of the state cabinet. He would pass WP:POLITICIAN on that basis. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable state-level Member of Legislative Assembly as well as cabinet minister, passing WP:POLITICIAN.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As an elected MLA and an appointed Minister the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 06:43, 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} 04:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Out[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any independent published information about this band. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I am unable to find coverage to suggest this band meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is there no indication of the reliable source coverage required, there isn't even a real claim of notability being made here at all. Technically speediable, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 5 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. Sandstein 08:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Pomona College, Pitzer College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE The Banner talk 21:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No redirect as covered multiple places. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally PROD'd the article, an editor removed the prod with no justification, and the nom here reused my rationale for deletion. James (^talk/_contribs) 02:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've nominated a sister article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas. James (^talk/_contribs) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted to delete on the Claremont page because I thought the page was unnecessary due to the fact that the other schools in the same division did not have pages for their athletic teams. As I've seen a few of these pop up, this seems like an attempt to create separate pages for each school in the division (I see Pomona and Redlands on there, with a few more to go). I think it's worth keeping all of these if quality pages can be created for each athletic program. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this had a disambiguation page banner on its talk page, so appeared in alerts list for Wikiproject Disambiguation - but it isn't a dab page so I've removed that banner. PamD 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It used to be a dab-page until recently someone started adding - in my opinion - irrelevant content. The Banner talk 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags. Spatms (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Athenas. Spatms (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN, no hint of meeting GNG. Adequate coverage as above.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. part of Ukraine related hoax / vandalism spree by creator —Kusma (t·c) 09:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Broadcasting System Ukraine[edit]

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

No supporting references support existence of this entity - likely hoax per creator history. Purported official site does not exist and nothing mentioned about this at other links provided. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 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 speedy delete. by User:Dlohcierekim as WP:G3, G4 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Ukraine)[edit]

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

No supporting references support existence of this entity - likely hoax per creator history. Purported official site does not exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete perhaps WP:CSD#G4? No better than before. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G4 endorsed "The channel was launched on July 28, 2017" says it all; hoax. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
everything they posted is a hoax. I reverted that Disney is opening a theme park in Kiev and CNN has a Ukrainian network while checking their edits. Looks like this person is 14 years old and obviously enjoys games. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 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 speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang (Ukrainian TV channel)[edit]

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

No supporting references support existence of this entity - likely hoax per creator history. Purported official site does not exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as Hoax Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G4 endorsed "Launched 5 October 2017" says it all; hoax. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 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 speedy delete. by User:Athaenara as WP:G11 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Garzón-Montano[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7, this article is being repeatedly recreated by socks. No indication of meeting notability requirements. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Again this time as Advertising. I've requested the creator be blocked as well as a Promo only account. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. In fact I am inclined to speedily delete this, as Legacypac suggests, unless anyone gives a reason not to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @JamesBWatson: Works for me. I chose not to myself since I speedily closed the last one. I want as many different admins touching this issue as possible. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure you get User:Jokerinthemarketplace/sandbox if you do delete things. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And anything here which should be deleted, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not a mod, just a random fan of Gabriel's. Noticed the article was marked for speedy deletion and wanted to add my two cents. Gabriel more than fulfills the notability requirement, and the article is pretty consistent with other artist articles on the site. Not sure what's going on, but as a huge fan of his, I don't think it's fair to him to delete the page. AlvinLiangUSC (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
welcome to Wikipedia where your third edit is to AfD after a couple sandbox edits? Not where most people start, but ok. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using wikipedia for a while. As you can see, I made my account several weeks ago. Created an account to make some articles about Spatial Audio because I love the subject and there isn't enough of it on here, but found the editing system a little too complicated and put it off. Maybe you can give me some pointers? Happy to connect if you suspect I'm connected to the OP. AlvinLiangUSC (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pointer #1 establish yourself and get practice editing existing pages and fighting vandalism first. Later you'll have the skills to build a proper page. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you. Any chance you can elaborate on why this page was problematic so I can avoid making the same mistakes? AlvinLiangUSC (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey im a fan, don't know what's up but this guy definitely deserves a page. Found him through a Spotify playlist and have been following for months. If there is a problem, please just edit it but don't delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.148.69.227 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Welcome IP. Are you connected to the page creator by any chance? Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 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} 04:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three Tree Island[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. If this exists, it obviously meets WP:GEOLAND. However, I cannot find a single reference for this island. There was one hit, to a mirror site of the Warren RI article, but that article no longer appears to mention this island. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as a natural feature (as opposed to a populated place) mere existence would not be enough, per WP:GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Shawn in Montreal. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a redirect and merge to Palmer River (Massachusetts – Rhode Island), which does not currently list the island. It gets a mention in this book, so we know it exists? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That book is a work of fiction, so I'm pretty sure we can't use it as a source for a real location.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax; an article whose only source is a work of fiction (Swim that Rock). Power~enwiki (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right. The other geographical settings -- including the Palmer River -- seem real enough but it's possible this island is a fictional locale. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax, or delete as non-notable, or delete as unsupported by any evidence. It's good to have choices. --Lockley (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:V. Content paraphrases a work of fiction. Evidence of real world existence comes from unreliable sites like patch.com, Flickr and Wikipedia mirrors. It might be a local nickname for a real place or pure folklore. We can't verify it without reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coordinates given are a very small island in Warren, RI, but the satellite image appears to show many trees and nothing indicates the island is named. I did find Three Tree island is an alternate name for a Four Tree Island in NH, and there seems to be a Three Tree Island in Alaska. But nothing on this one. MB 04:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: The island on Google Maps is not present on an 1870 map of Warren, RI. I suspect "Three Tree Island" is a recently formed silt buildup with only local recognition. Not a hoax but still not notable. Possibly not even permanent. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:GEOLAND. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete it cannot be a hoax and a fictional place. That being said, it is a non notable place This is a local name. There are other g-hits. No significant coverage.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:48, 6 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 United Episcopal Church of North America. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter D. Robinson[edit]

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

No refs on the page, almost impossible to find any references anywhere - never mind decent length independent secondary sources - which show this individual is notable. Page reads like it is a CV and I note that many of the edits were made by IP. If detail is needed at all about this guy, it should be noted on the page of his denomination not in this self-congratulatory way. WP:BASIC WP:RESUME JMWt (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, as the head of a small Anglican communion. Note that his predecessor Presiding Bishop of the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA) is bluelinked, despite lack of sources. Nom User:JMWt may be unaware of this convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC) changing iVoteE.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say that he meets any of those criteria - he is not the bishop of a major denomination, he is not the head of a large protestant denomination or a chief rabbi. The denomination is small, in no sense major or large. Again, I'm perfectly happy to see a section on the denominational page about him - but surely makes no sense to have an unsourced and probably unsourceable page about every detail of every leader of every denomination. For one thing, that'd be open season for people to write pages about themselves that cannot be checked. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the previous leader, I don't find that page so objectionable. It seems to me that any statement needs to be referenced, and a minor religious figure is very unlikely to have sufficient references available to reference. Of course, if Peter Robinson has written this page (which seems likely), he knows that the details about himself are correct - but we have no way of checking any of them. A page of a few paras might make sense, but I'd still argue that'd be better done on the denominational page. JMWt (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~(changing iVote to redirect, see below) Honestly, I don't think Anglicanism has been so contentious since the reign of Charles I. There are, it seems, no fewer than 5 small, contending secessionist denominations in similar relationship to the old mainline Episcopal Church (United States) [2]. I added a source or 2 to the article on this one, the United Episcopal Church of North America, and there are more sources that can be added, but it appears to have been a thing about 30 years ago, but to have shriveled into a much smaller denomination. I cannot source the article on Bishop Robinson with secondary sources, so I think we can delete this and leave him to the single sentence he has at the article on the United Episcopal Church of North America page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. But that's not a strong reason for deletion in-and-of-itself, one could be the head of a small religious group and be noted. To me the critical thing here is that he's not noted in any significant way in independent secondary sources and therefore isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, we keep many articles on Bishops who cannot be sourced, except for the fact of having been a Bishop. We keep them even if no other sources exist when Churches are part of the Anglican Communion, which the United Episcopal Church of North America is not. So I think the question becomes how major a group is UECNA? There is a tendency for small Pentecostal and other Christian groups, even very small ones consisting of a preacher in a single rented storefront church, to declare themselves as new Churches, make up a fancy title (the Great church of God in North America, or whatever), and declare the sole preach a "Bishop." "Bishops" of this sort get deleted, or covered if the sources support it, but they do not get pages under CLERGYOUTCOMES. Robinson, however, is Bishop of a denomination that broke off from a larger church. According to the 1987 Washington Post article I added to the UECNA page, there were 20 churches in the movement in 1987. That probably passes the bar at CLERGYOUTCOMES. But the UECNA appears to have shrunk since then. In my view, if we can establish that the UECNA is a significant thing, then he can have a page. If we cannot, then he can have a page only if it is supported under the usual WP:GNG rules. (His page, of course, would need to be cut back to name, rank, serial number, and only whatever else can be reliably sourced.) I do expect that other editors with experience in this area will weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it is possible to put too much weight on OUTCOMES when they're supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive. The reason that leaders of larger denominations are notable is that they're more likely to be noted in independent secondary sources and more likely to have a range of possible references to call upon with regard to facts in the article. I think it is circular to say that a page should or shouldn't be kept because of CLERGYOUTCOMES. JMWt (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We keep them on the same principle that has us keep pages on all members of elected legislatures on a provincial or higher level. And it's actually surprising how often they get sourced or link to, eventually.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- As far as I can make out he is the head of one of the splinter denominations of the American episcopal church. The fact that posts were vacant before he took them up speaks for itself as to the status of the denomination. If not kept, this should be merged/redirected to the denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to increase participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Episcopal Church of North America where he is already mentioned with an appropriate description. No need to merge any copy since there were was no independent sourcing on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for other participants to discuss on Redirect proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with E.M.Gregory. He's sufficiently notable for a redirect, but I see no coverage/sourcing of him beyond the (splinter) church to justify an independent article at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 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. czar 06:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ekberg[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails NPROF, NBIO, and GNG. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable author. This is promotional cruft. --Lockley (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any sources that indicated notability. Fails WP:BIO Rogermx (talk)
delete He teaches in Gymnasium? High School teachers are not usually notable. The sources on the page do not support at claim of notability. I found none better. Promocruft.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:55, 6 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. czar 06:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Workerz[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Created by a single purpose promotional account Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, unsupported by sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
'delete per above.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:58, 6 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. Sandstein 08:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson-Thomson[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, only 2 marginal references that don't prove any notability but may merely show that he existed (assuming good faith because references are either off-line or dead). Moreover, article tone and photos seem more like memorial, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable and not verified. This does indeed have the flavor of an obit or memorial. Unfortunately this isn't the place. --Lockley (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very interesting gentleman. However, he does not meet WP:BIO. Rogermx (talk) 20:13, 5 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} 04:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Sports Plus[edit]

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

This may be notable, but if it is, there's absolutely nothing in the English language to indicate that this is the case. TimothyJosephWood 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its spam Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Titan Sports (newspaper) as a plausible redirect; a whole lot of words to tell us 'this is the paper's mobile app'. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrschimpf, that is one of a half dozen other articles of dubious notability created by this apparent COI SPA. TimothyJosephWood 00:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging me to the SPA issues; looking at that article closer, I would have to switch to a delete based on that. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been trying to combat this spam article for a while now. Had the original deleted before. Nothing has changed since then.★Trekker (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far the key issue is to confirm the 'notability' of the object of the article.

For the reference, I used one reference of the self-introduction of the object on its official website and a reference from a third-party, which is from 163.com, a top 4 Chinese portal website. One reference from an 'insider' point of view and a reference from an 'outsider' point of view, I believe, is enough to keep the description neutral. And two references for a 100-word article is enough, I think. When I wrote this article, I just tried to catch the key points of the object. So far I think the introduction is neat and clean. Any suggestions to improve the notability of the object? Shall I send more Chinese third-party reports on this object? (I did not put up many of them as I think too many references are not helpful to the quality of an article, like an academic essay.) For the photos, they seem to have more photos with sports celebrities. But one is enough (with Isinyayeva), I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those sources being very notability granting, your draft was not accepted but you still went ahead and added the article once again. I seriously suspect this is a form of spamming. Also, sign your comments.★Trekker (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo content for an unremarkable app. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G11 by User:Athaenara. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Tavares[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Despite requesting references on the article talk page, and trying to engage positively on the user's own talk page, no WP:RS content of sufficient merit has yet been provided to demonstrate notability, so I feel AfD is the best forum to deal with this. Article creator is the subject of the article and there seems to be clear WP:COI in their editing, both on themselves and on a new article created about their employer. (Point of note: A similar article on Lucas Tavares appears to have been deleted from Portuguese Wikipedia in 2011 on the grounds of self-promotion, assuming my use of Google translate was up to it.) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as self promotional advertising. He can never provide RS because someone in that job is unlikely to ever reach Notability standards for Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk)
Delete: Effectively the subject's CV with just enough sources to verify his line of work but not to establish encyclopaedic notability by either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG criteria. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 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 Redirect as sufficient consensus by 1 week, nac, SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games[edit]

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

A list with a single item is not useful or worthwhile. Clearly is too early to have such a list. The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of best-selling video games for now. It'll be spun out eventually, but not yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:33, 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) 20:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Switch games using Miis[edit]

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

A list with a single item is not useful or worthwhile. Clearly is too early to have such a list. The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Any notable usage of Miis could be mentioned in the article Mii but there's no reason to have coverage of every game that uses them, any more than it's important to list every game that uses a particular controller feature, library, gameplay mechanic, sound effect, or other design feature. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to propose to keep, at least cite a reason why. Ajf773 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both "keep" and "delete" are considered invalid if no reason is provided. See WP:JUSTAVOTE.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only one item. Could be recreated when there are more Switch games. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Prinsipe Ybarro ^{(Talk to me)} 08:24, 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 speedy delete per A7. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Garzón-Montano[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The page seems to be created by individuals with WP:SPA and/or WP:COI. PROD was removed without specifying any reason or justification. Coderzombie (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Also add related page Jardín (album) to the nomination. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had I hopes for sourcing this when I enetered this search, back when it was a WP:ProD. G-Hits include Washinton Post, New York Times, NPR, BBC. However, the links that gave me the most hope gave me disappointment in that they are blurbs and short reviews of songs and the album, w/o in depth coverage of the subject. Could not find significant coverage of the subject. So there goes WP:GNG. There is a very impressively written AllMusic page. But if you squeeze it dry and shake it out and look at it, you do not see evidence of subject meeting WP:Music. The album does not meet WP:music, has not charted on BillBoard, though a reviewer there spoke highly of the album. Almost forgot-- the cites on the page are not in depth or are from the record label, so are not helpful toward the eternal quest. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected the album page to this one for now. The promo guy is posting protests on my talk page. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 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. Sandstein 08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Rayne[edit]

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

Delete It doesn't appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:BIO. There are three sources, the first and third are not independent and the second is inaccessible. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a tribute page & unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly there just aren't enough sources available to support this article. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:26, 5 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. Riley Cohen (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Portland train attack[edit]

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

1,589 people were stabbed to death in 2012. This case is not WP:NOTE. It's not treated as terrorism, so I don't see why this should be relevant. Rævhuld (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (speedy keep) - subject has received significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources and nominator fails to put forward a valid basis for deletion (just saying "not notable" isn't a reason for deletion, the number of stabbings is irrelevant, and the fact that something is or is not terrorism is not a notability factor). This is a quite frivolous nomination. Neutrality^talk 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy keep) as per Neutrality. This is an event that has attracted international news attention, not merely local or national news attention.Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree om the fact that the incident wasn't treated as terrorism, but there was international attention to the incident as it was an attack related to anti-muslim and racial slurs. This incident might be an example of a hate crime despite the victims not being the intended target by the suspect. And if this incident is treated as a hate crime, it could be treated as encyclopedic.JBergsma1 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer: article creator), of course, per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources and many public figures, including President Trump, have publicly offered condolences and spoken out against the attack. κατάστασ η 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- this is clearly more than just a run-of-the-mill incident. (And part of the discussion is of course, "Why isn't this being treated as a terrorist incident?")--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly a notable event. It has gathered attention of the Press. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of references are available. --Edcolins (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep by now it should be obvious there is overwhelming consensus this meets relevant notability requirements. Bri (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep The nominator claims it is not terrorism, but "The FBI is investigating the attack and will determine whether it should be categorized as a federal hate crime or an act of domestic terrorism." per ABC News. It has widely been described as the double murder of good samaritans responding to a hate crime, and it took place on public transit. It has gained worldwide notice including from the US president, which the nominator might have noticed didn't happen for the other claimed 1500 stabbings. Edison (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy keep). No question this event is notable, with significant coverage in national and international media. --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Even if the crime wasn't a 'beyond a doubt' hate crime, the fact it occurred on a light-rail train makes it obvious as a 'doesn't happen often' event and would have been also kept on that basis. The nom is definitely WP:TROUTworthy. Nate • (chatter) 20:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a snow keep, but I suspect in a few months it may be re-visited in the AfD process. The current publicity around this event is primarily political in nature, but that is often enough for this type of article, e.g. Shooting of Kathryn Steinle. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Agree with previous points made, and terrorism isn't the only form of notable crime. If similar stabbing incidents like the 2016 Magnanville stabbing, 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2017 Paris machete attack, 2016 Shchelkovo Highway police station attack, etc. have their own articles with the same or less coverage, I see no reason why this can't. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, snow close. The president commented on it. It has attracted national attention. MB298 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If a Muslim kills someone, it is immediately notable. If an anti-Muslim kills someone, an editor wants to delete the article. The double standard here is palpable. WWGB (talk) 23:05, 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 redirect (non-admin closure) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Dislike[edit]

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

Unsourced dictionary entry, with some social media usage. Does not belong here. Killer Moff (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any encyclopedic content should go under Like. This entry is a definition, and should redirect to Wiktionary. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wiktionary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this dictdef to wiktionary per Piotrus. --Lockley (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary, to this page specifically, per WP:NAD. Seagull123 Φ 20:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 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. Sandstein 08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

András Csonka[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with no reason given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem that notable, with only one reference. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Appearance in Magyar Cup was not in a match involving two teams from a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 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, post nomination being withdrawn. Lourdes 18:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC) (preceding comment added subsequent to the close by GSS, to assist the Afd script in parsing the close. Lourdes) The result was Nominator Withdraw. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayraj Salgaokar[edit]

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

The subject is known only for the calendar Kalnirnay, and nothing else. If the article doesnt improve in the seven day period, it should be deleted. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The past few Afds have strangely seen me !voting Keep continuously. Anyway, not only is the subject known for the iconic Kalnirnay (and for taking it digital), the subject is also known for the the book he has written[3] and the horn meter he innovated (oh god I need one!). I would suggest developing the article than deleting it. Covered by NYT, TIME magazine, Milliyet, Kosmo, and other international news media apart from national media within India and the likes. Here you go: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Lourdes 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Yes, i agree with you regarding him being well known for the Kalnirnay. But after coming across his article which was created by his employee, and had nothing except the infobox; I searched for him on internet. I couldnt find anything about him in general search, or in news except for his connection with Kalnirnay.
I am not sure how to create an article out of these sources. Would you please help me with that? (That is the actual reason I skim through AfD, to find out articles which can be saved.) Ironically, when I found an article (this one) which can be improved, i dont know how to do it. lol —usernamekiran(talk) 17:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can surely assist Kiran. If you withdraw this nomination, I'll work on the article and at least have an acceptable stub ready. Thanks. Lourdes 01:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Lourdes. You can send me rough content as well, I can easily make it in encyclopaedic content.

I withdraw my nomination After taking a look at new found sources, it is evident that the suject is notable to have an article on encyclopaedia. So I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Lourdes, and I will try to make it a stub, or "start class" encyclopaedia article. Thank you all for your consideration. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:29, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo cast members[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable grouping. It's just a list of people that barely are connected. Unsourced for 10 years. WP:TRIVIA. The1337gamer (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable shows can have a cast member list, but there's no reason to regroup those lists in this manner, particularly if there's no notable/third-party sources discussing this list. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is just gorgeous. You know, a similar list of Mario franchise voice actors could be a possibility, but what in the world is a "Nintendo cast member"? I know that Nintendo has a strong identity as a company, but not that strong. ~Mable (chat) 15:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there were sources discussing actors in Nintendo products as a group, or sugggestions of a Nintendo house style, or people working across multiple media on Nintendo products, this could be a valid topic. It might also be useful to have a properly categorised list (not just a list of names with no indication of what they do) as a central resource, instead of having separate voice cast lists for numerous different products. As it stands, the article is weak, but possibly it's salvageable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a list would come under a different title and would probably have completely different entries, seeing as there are no sources here. I'd love to see such lists, but this existing list isn't relevant for that at all. ~Mable (chat) 17:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, just like my nomination and subsequent deletion of Evocation in popular culture, it's hard to believe this has existed since 2007. It's an arbitrary collection: what is a "Nintendo cast member"? A voice actor that portrays a character by the company? In that case, it is not noteworthy and vague. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic original research and fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is totally arbitrary, and if the listing were made complete it would undoubtedly be so large as to be unmanageable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. This article should not exist at all, as the subject "Nintendo cast members" does not exist. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 5 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 (withdrawn by nominator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanya Hongtangwan Airport[edit]

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

No WP:RS. Closest is: https://centreforaviation.com/data/profiles/newairports/new-sanya-airport

Nominating as per WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not WP:CRYSTAL. It a major ($15-billion) infrastructure project which is already under construction, with piles already being driven for a new artificial island. It's easy to find sources:

http://www.chinatravelnews.com/article/84727
https://centreforaviation.com/data/profiles/newairports/new-sanya-airport
http://www.enr.com/articles/42073-dodecakon-is-driving-gigantic-piles-in-china
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-03/24/content_28659725.htm
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1593841/chinese-tourist-hub-sanya-wants-reclaimed-land-build-more-airports
background at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/business/international/chinese-tourists-pump-cash-into-a-hot-destination-china.html?_r=0
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1988767/dangers-land-reclamation-sanya-aims-create-new-artificial-island-house
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1988768/tourism-bottleneck-relief-way-work-due-start-new-sanya-airport-later-year
mentioned at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2017-05/15/content_29344997.htm

There's plenty more coverage out there. It took me only a few minutes to find those sources, and per WP:BEFORE the nominator should have searched for sources before making this nomination.

I invite Usernamekiran to withdraw this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I did search before nominating it. I even mentioned one source above. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the light of reliable sources being available, I withdraw the nomination in goodfaith. I apologise for the mess. It was unintentional. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 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 G4 deleted as near-verbatim copy of the version deleted at the last AfD. ‑ Iridescent 11:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Stunna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject hasn't been discussed in reliable sources, and the sources cited in the article are primarily download sites. None of the singles and albums released by the subject have been discussed in reliable sources. This article has been deleted twice in the past. Please see below:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Stunna
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young stunna Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:29, 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. Sandstein 08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kausikan Sivalingam[edit]

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

Non-notable music composer.The page is filled with sources that don't mention him except Facebook, IMDb and Youtube WP:CITEOVERKILL.I have searched the net and can't find a single reliable source.Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO FITINDIA 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of facebook, youtube and other non-authoritative references, but nothing that indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELFPROMOTION. They have IMDb and WikiP as unreliable sources as well. MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

im just wondering are you paralyzed? why do you make so many stupid edits and waste your time? are you unemployed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heosipel (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SELFPROMOTION. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELFPROMOTION as well as (possibly) WP:NOTWEBHOST. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:08, 6 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. Sandstein 08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman Azhar[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Power~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why ? --Saqib (talk) 07:16, 14 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) 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like some case needs to be made here. The article has been the subject of several edit wars but no real change over the past 5 years. There are no links cited as references but 13 links at the end of the article, none currently useful. The article reads as a personal bio. Overall, it's a very low-quality article, and should possibly be reduced to a 1-paragraph stub. But I can't support a case for deletion of this article unless somebody who reads Urdu can check for notability in that language. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he is notable, it is not verifiable at this stage. If an Urdu reader proves this wrong at some point in the future, then this article can be re-created. It does not appear to have an Urdu-language Wikipedia article and I cannot find sources to verify notability, nor is notability clear from this article. MartinJones (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the references point to anything notable if to anything at all.--Rpclod (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after a few more weeks of the AfD process, I no longer support my previous Keep vote here, and remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 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 no consensus. After three relists, there is still no consensus whether the sources demonstrate notability and there is no indication that another relist would lead to a clearer consensus. So Why 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahima Naz[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 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 (✉) 18:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep not internationally notable, but [12] suggests that there's local notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 07:19, 14 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 06:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local notability, no matter how well deserved, is not the same as WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added 2 reliable sources and removed some un-cited content. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one link is dead, another just mentions the subject as a bystander quoted for an article. One article does not create notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sources found to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The one Pakistan Today article is all about her and is enough, in my view, to establish notability for an author working in a non-English area (we may surmise that more coverage exists in local languages). Sandstein 08:10, 6 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. Sandstein 08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ravnsborg[edit]

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

Contested prod. Candidate for attorney general in South Dakota. Previously ran for Senator in 2014, but does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG - sources given in article are far from sufficient, as are sources to be found online. It is possible he will become notable in the future, but he is not at the present time. MartinJones (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It is virtually unsourced, but even if sourced does not have lasting notability. Kablammo (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent. I'm seeing some local news coverage [13] [14]. Notably, I see multiple sources citing an Associated Press profile of him, like [15]. I'm not sure. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That AP coverage has just five sentences on the subject. Not exactly in-depth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely does not meet WP:SOLDIER. He would have to rise much higher in politics to meet WP:POLITICIAN and fails WP:GNG.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable because of the election per se. The fact that you can show a handful of campaign coverage does not assist in building a WP:GNG case, either — every candidate in any election anywhere is always the subject of a handful of campaign coverage, so that falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not bolster notability per se. For added bonus, this is written much more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article — so even if he were notable enough for an article, it still wouldn't get to look like this. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing shown or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently notable. Pichpich (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 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 keep. WP:HEY —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barel[edit]

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

Unable to verify the existence of this village. The coordinates given are not in the state specified (Jammu and Kashmir); they are in Rajasthan. Rajasthan does have a place named Baler (containing the same five letters), very close to the coordinates, which is surrounded by rivers on three sides. There are also two places named Barel in the Barabanki district of the state of Uttar Pradesh, but I don't see any major rivers near there. Since it is not clear what place this article is intended to cover, and it contains inconsistent and unverified information, delete for now. There are already several mirror sites displaying information from this article. MB 19:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The subject of this AFD at the time it was created was an unverified place in Kashmir. No one has substantiated existence of that village. However, the content of the article has since been entirely replaced with that about a different village of the same name in UP. Therefore, the reason for the AFD has been rendered obsolete. MB 14:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This might be just an incorrect coordinates issue. I also have doubts about existence of this town, and thought about nominating it for AfD. But it has been on wiki for almost 12-13 years. If nobody from Kashmir/delhi/Punjab or nearing areas have contested it, it might exist. Just moments ago this nomination, I initiated this: Talk:Kathua district#Is Barel town in Kathua district?. Also kindly see this: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Where_is_Barel.3F
We should wait till we get a proper confirmation of its non-existence. Not every small town of India has an online presence. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New comment/vote below. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ a town that we can't locate or even prove exists. Should be deleted unless somebody adds at least one reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am all in for deleting unencyclopaedic content, and/or hoaxes. Let it be a single statement, a paragraph, or entire article. I tried my best to delete this false article from wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latur Municipal Transport. But at that time, it was evident that Latur Municipal transport didnt exist.

We are talking about a small village from Kashmir. That area has extremely severe issues of all sorts. It has been like this since 1950s. Most of the Indians are still afraid to visit Kashmir, except for a few tourist spots. I believe a small village from that region wouldnt have an online presence. We shouldnt delete it till we get confirmation that it does not exist.

I would also like to point out that in last 12 years, nobody doubted its existence. Not even a single user posted on the article or on the talkpage that it does not exist, or where it is. If it was non existent, at the least there should have been a vandalism attempt stating "this town doesnt exist". But there is nothing of that sort either. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policy is the opposite, we should delete unless there is confirmation that it does exist, per WP:VER. The "article" is only two sentences and can easily be recreated if sources are found. There are probably thousands of villages in India alone without articles. Not having an article on a small village is not unusual. The fact that an unsourced article has remained for 12 years already is irrelevant. MB 03:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other comments, needs a reference to prove it exists. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the policy. But the history of the page should be preserved. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found some information about such a village in Uttar Pradesh: [16], [17] [18]. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: that's a good development. Maybe we can change the article completely to reflect it as a town from UP. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned at the top that there are two other places by this name in Uttar Pradesh. But there is nothing in this article in common except the name. If someone wants to write a new article about another Barel, that should not be entwined with this article. MB 19:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: i dont know how that can be a problem. We can start from the scratch. There is nothing much in the current article anyways. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and start over. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irreparable. We can blow it up from the inside, and start there. All we have to do is to change a few words! —usernamekiran(talk) 21:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I updated it completely. Now there are no issues other than being orphan, and bare refs. I dont know know how to cite, so i couldnt do it. I will link the article from others tomorrow. I think there is no need to delete the article now.—usernamekiran(talk) 22:07, 25 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 04:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article issues have been addressed, no reason to delete the new article. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like a TNT job was done, it was reduced to a stub and it can grow properly from there. --Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per WP:GEOLAND, as Barel is a populated place, which is legally recognized by the government of India. BTW, I've rewritten the article along with adding a couple of relevant sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now the article is untouchable as per WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, now that the article's been rewritten about a place that is properly verifiable in reliable sources. If the nominator or anyone else feels strongly about stripping the unverifiable old version from the edit history, we can still do either a revision delete, or a quick technical delete with immediate restoration of only the edits that pertain to the real place. But those things can still be proposed on the article's talk page quite independently of the AFD result — revdel and/or temporary delete-and-restore are options that always remain open to us for dealing with a lot of content or technical problems, and don't necessarily require an AFD result to support them. Bearcat (talk) 12:22, 5 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. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities[edit]

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

This really should have been two sentences in tornado, maybe three for a prominent example but instead it's an original research festival of monumental proportions, with a variety of tags which already tell the passing reader that it's trash. Here's the problem in a nutshell: it's belaboring a "myth" which it doesn't disprove, because the whole idea is rather vague in the first place. What exactly does "downtown" mean here? Presumably the idea behind the myth is that lots of really tall buildings or something like that disrupt the airflow or something like that. But I'm betting people's idea there is Manhattan, New York, not Manhattan, Kansas, the latter having been hit numerous times. Even Topeka might not meet people's implicit standards. Meanwhile the extensive list has numerous verification problems, not the least of which are that (a) it's unclear which of these entered the central business district of a city, and (b) whether that area was "sufficiently" built up to fit into the myth in the first place (what's "large"?). One prominent example (e.g. the 1953 Waco tornado) is enough. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly an unnecessary list, which sets itself the brief of only "downtown" parts of cities, which is not properly defined, and this is all subject to someone's opinion as to what qualifies, so a lot of OR. Why wasn't this spotted sooner? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is one of scholarly interest, see THIS piece from Scientific American. This is a well-documented almanac-style compilation of incidents — perhaps not complete but solid "work in progress" at a minimum. The term "downtown" needs better definition, but that is an editing problem, not a basic question of WP inclusion in this case. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the notion should be mentioned in the main article. The list is a problem because, on two dimensions, it is ill-defined. "Downtown of a large city" is is vague, and while there are a few clear-cut cases, most everything else is arguable. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unclear criteria for inclusion; "downtown of a large city" is very vague. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 23 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 04:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, where is the wikiarticle on "List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of not so large cities" or "List of tornadoes striking outside downtown areas of large cities"? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons mostly along the same line as Carrite's. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems difficult to define but the editors have done an excellent job. What would be easy to define, but perhaps far too long a list as there is a natural affinity between them: Tornados that hit trailer parks Legacypac (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Per the Scientific American article cited above there is scientific interest in whether tornadoes are somehow repelled from builtup areas of large cities.Also Prof Ted Fujita himself per Chicago Magazine has discussed the "heat island" theory of downtowns repelling tornadoes. USA Today discussed tornadoes hitting large cities. NOAA has its own list of tornadoes hitting large cities, supporting the appropriateness of this list. The article's long edit history and talk page show that editors have been willing to prune entries which miss the stated criteria of "downtown" and cities over 50,000, so qualifying and referencing entries is not an insurmountable problem. It seems an appropriate almanac function of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 20:46, 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} 04:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Antinori[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear notability since 2016. Many sources are obsolete links and would not seem to attest sufficient coverage. 'Reads like an ad' tag since May 2016. darthbunk pakt dunft 15:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 21 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 04:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and WP:SALT This has been deleted twice in the past. What has changed? This appears to be the work of a determined promoter. MartinJones (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see Martin's comments above.--Rpclod (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and SALT as per MartinJones comments. Highly promotional and very poorly sourced. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:42, 5 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. Sandstein 08:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WaterRower[edit]

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

advertisement for non-notable device by non-notable company DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, could not have said that better. Delete. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – below are some sources that provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Australian
Cleveland.com
Providence Journal

See also

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice brochure.--Rpclod (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- overly promotional; such content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first glance, there appears to be more than adequate independent sources establishing notability. Here is a dailymail.co.uk article but then I find it is essentially requoting the WSJ. Similarly, this article from TIME does the same. And then an article in stern.de does the same. It looks very much like a WSJ-led ad campaign. I'm open to changing my mind if another source can be found but at this point in time, I'm leaning towards Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 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} 04:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure: A Story of Everything[edit]

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

Based on the information in the article it is not a substantially important book. The information is already in the article on the author DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not just redirect it? --Michig (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no authoritative references that suggest notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a review from the magazine Philosophy Now, but that isn't enough to make this pass WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 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) Exemplo347 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sar e Aam[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The content of the show has made it to the news. See: ARY News, Daily Pakistan & Express Tribune - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this channel's premier newsmagazine of which the results of their stories and investigative work are easily found in Pakistani media. These noms of yours without any BEFORE trying to delete anything Pakistani are becoming tiresome. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comments above are sufficient to sway me to accept it meets the inclusion criteria. MartinJones (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no authoritative references at all, let alone sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:48, 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 redirect to Scottish Socialist Party. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bonnar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. There are the options of redirects to Bill Bonnar or Scottish Socialist Party, but neither article contains more than her name in terms of information and so could confuse readers. Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, not an important enough figure in the party to redirect to Scottish Socialist Party. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I can find no online news or website sources to suggest the subject meets either general or political notability. Just this. Probably deserves no more than a brief mention in the Scottish Socialist Party article. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scottish Socialist Party, keeps the link blue and preserves article history if she later winds up notable. Redirects are cheap. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Socialist Party. Being spokesperson for a minor political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass, and the only source given here is the party's own primary source web page about itself — but for people with a deep interest in Scottish politics, she is a plausible enough search term that her name should lead the reader somewhere relevant rather than just redlinking. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I (still) support delete over a redirect. Her role in the Scottish Socialist Party was a 1-year long, patronage-style job (her father is a long-standing figure in the party) and doesn't justify a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a judgement call here. Some of these articles, recreating a redlink is just bait for the article to be recreated and we do the drama all over again. A redirect often just creates a nice, quiet obscurity... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the links from Sandra Webster (which is also an AfD candidate IMO) and Bill Bonnar. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, I'd keep it as a redirect. I really think that it is a better way to tuck in a person who is, most likely, a WP:TOOSOON situation. Daughter of a political party founder? We could have the next Marine LePen, (only on the other side of the political spectrum) for all we know. Montanabw^(talk) 14:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scottish Socialist Party, not notable enough for her own article. Quetzal1964 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC) talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After hidden info was restored, consensus now appears to be to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Buza[edit]

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

The article is 11.5 years old. It is one sentence long. It has an barebones infobox. It has one external link, which is the "always reliable" IMDB. There are no references. Kellymoat (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Redirect to his show.~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post a wiki link to "his show"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs)

I don't know for sure, but I assume Duffbeerforme means the X-Men show you linked to in your nomination. That does seem to be his most well-known work of his, looking at the TV Guide listing here. He did 69 episodes of X-Men, and really only 1-5 episodes of anything else listed there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite how the article appeared, it wasn't a 11½-year-old stub. It includes a great deal more information, but a now-banned editor hid most of it in 2016. I removed the comment tags hiding the content and added some references. The article could use more references, but there's no good reason to delete it. - Eureka Lott 01:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple significant roles in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 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) Jupitus Smart 05:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Bianchi[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. St0n3 BG (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How he didn't met WP:ENTERTAINER criteria since he was part from mutiple television shows like Big Brother 2 and Big Brother All Stars 2013, also having an own TV Show and also he meet WP:MUSIC sinse he have few songs part of Bulgarian music charts. I would add an information for them in the article as soon as possible. Chris Calvin (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom has made several of these nominations which clearly are notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a number of singles by Leo spanning a full decade including frequent collaborations with other artists. werldwayd (talk) 15:46, 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. Seems like a bad faith nomination (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Hoang[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. St0n3 BG (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure the nominator is aware of WP:BEFORE. A cursory google news search comes up with over a thousand results, with at least the first half a dozen or so pages containing only articles that are entirely about the subject. This comfortably passes WP:GNG. – Uanfala (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and check nominator's other nominations for similar where clearly notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable artist with multiple hits. Article includes a good number of references. werldwayd (talk) 05:53, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau de monterminod[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See fr:Roussette de Monterminod. This is likely notable. But should the article be about the castle, the wine or the vineyard? Srnec (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A medieval castle is likely to be notable. The incorrectly capitalised redirect can certainly be deleted as unnecessary. However this is an adequately referenced article, and I see no reason to remove it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you joking, "adequately referenced"? Did you even look at them? JMHamo (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having looked through them, I think that the two books referenced constitute reliable sources. Can you point to why they might not be? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With valid-enough references, it seems the only issue is notability, and I think this passes. --Lockley (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since I don't know French, will AGF on the refs. But they seem sufficient and I believe the topic is notable. MB 03:02, 4 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. There's a clear consensus to delete here, both in numbers and strength of arguments, with no prejudice against redirection. The few editors who disagreed have not made any convincing case to establish that the subject is clearly notable. Coverage in reliable sources does exist, but the case that these sources constitute "significant coverage" per the GNG has not been made. There is also an overarching agreement that if notability exists it is extremely marginal at best, and the serious and persistent issues plaguing the article are more than sufficient to err on the side of deletion. Swarm ♠ 23:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All the same issues identified in the previous nomination still exist. All significant coverage cited and available in WP:BEFORE search is from non-WP:RS tabloids and unsourcable gossip sites. Some is even tabloids reporting on tabloids reporting on rumors. The only coverage in RS is either not significant (e.g., "who is Chloe {insert last name here}?") or WP:ROUTINE (e.g., "Chloe {insert last name here} is appearing..." and little more). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect back to Celebrity Big Brother 18#Chloe Khan, I originally created this as a redirect back in 2016 however come 2017 it was turned into an article, Anyway non notable BLP, As noted by the nom most if not all sources are just more or less tabloids and there doesn't appear to be anything in reliable sources, ~~Could delete however IMHO the info should be preserved incase she does actually become notable.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)(Updated 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Before some bright spark accuses me of canvassing - I've notified Boleyn of this discussion as although I created the article as a redirect she had turned the redirect into an actual article so it's only fair they're notified, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm on the fence. She seems to be notable for more than just one event. The sources are tabloids, but apparently some of the UK tabloids are considered reliable for some purposes. I still question whether some of these really are reliable, for example the Metro says Khan is a "horrid person" and that sounds more like opinion than news to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Metro is saying 'the horrid person she appeared as in X Factor' or words to that effect - how she was presented, rather than how she is as a person. She did come across extremely badly, but some of that at least will have been editing. It's not the Metro's best article though, but the Metro is an accepted reliable source. Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I can't find much at WP:RSN. Their website is a Wordpress blog. It does not list editorial staff or policy. It seems to have "contributors" rather than journalists. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AfD was before she took part in Celebrity Big Brother and there has been a substantial amount of coverage since. This article cites many reliable sources: The Independent, Daily Telegraph, Metro and Radio Times. All of these are accepted reliable sources and none are 'tabloid crap.' These are articles solely about her or a significant portion about her - she meets WP:BASIC. They cover not just trivial facts about her (although there is a lot of that to wade through), but information on past criminal records, controversies surrounding her participation in two of the most popular TV programmes in the UK - X Factor and Celebrity Big Brother etc. She is also not a WP:1E case - she received national media coverage originally for her appearance on X Factor and the controversies leading to her being removed from the show. However, there was then significant coverage of her modelling and finally her appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. If she was notable for one thing and had less coverage, it would be worth a redirect to that one page, but she is known - and has received a lot of media coverage in reliable sources - for more than one. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This coverage has not changed since nomination and is not persuasive. Of the offered sources, the article in The Independent is merely an announcement of a reality show contestant line-up and has all of one half-sentence about the article subject. The Telegraph article has significant coverage, but is mostly a rehash of rumors. The Metro articles are pure tabloid gossip (e.g.: "Since entering the house on Thursday, she’s been gushing about her millionaire boyfriend, Spearmint Rhino CEO John Gray, to her housemates. ‘Everyone thinks I’m such a gold digger!’ she said.") The Radio Times article is all of two paragraphs. This is level of coverage is either not significant or not reliable or both. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again. She is trying to become notable but appearently does not like how we are presenting her on Wikipedia based on the legal threats coming from a user claiming to be Chloe something. Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis of sources by Eggishorn. When the coverage amounts only to routine announcements, passing mentions and tabloid gossip, it is not possible to write an acceptable NPOV biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)r[reply]

Keep - This is not a popularity vote for Khan or a "I find her personality weird" noticeboard. But a !vote over if she is notable enough for inclusion. Several people above seem to forget that. From what I can see she has appeared on notable shows. And has been in the public eye for several years. Good sourcing as well. And the article could be expanded. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article, it appears to just be a collection of facts. I also agree that the sources used are not reliable. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 05:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the newspaper articles linked to in this article, and felt that they included a lot of information about her, especially when put altogether. The sources given are reliable ones. She has also, according to the article, been a part of 4 notable shows, including 2 of the highest-rating on British TV, which does satisfy WP:ENT. I hate reality television, but I fail to see how she does not meet the criteria for inclusion. MartinJones (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable subject and not worth the paper it's written on. Redirect, if you have to, to the Celebrity Big Brother 18#Chloe Khan, as per Davey2010. It appears Davey has also inadvertently admitted to being a secret Big Brother fan, as per his initial redirect. I thought much better of you, if I'm honest! ;) Cassianto ^Talk 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo Cass I don't watch that trash noooo not me!, Never watched it in my entire life...., Just did some research that's all .... yes that's it did a bit of research! :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - article seems to have a fair bit of coverage and probably passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 18 per BB fan Davey. If there's notability, its very VERY bare, and to be honest the number of legal threats, and sources from gossip sections makes it virtually impossible to write an article that would be NPOV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible to argue notability but it's at best borderline. As a user claiming to be Chloe Khan has requested the page be taken down with a threat of legal action, I think a courtesy BLP delete may be appropriate here. Deryck C. 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPREQUEST is only granted to those that aren't notable, As she is notable or borderline notable BLPREQ would be ruled out here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that she is notable therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply is sort of assuming an outcome to the discussion, isn't it? Her notability is what we are trying to establish and there are a number of editors above (myself obviously included) who don't believe that she is. If she is not, then the request does apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the correct policy - What I also wanted to say was that "BLPREQ usually applies if all the AFD participants !vote Delete per BLPREQ" but the comment just looked confusing, Usually BLPREQ would only apply if there's next to no sources online and basically wasn't notable enough to have an article, If everyone here agreed "yup she meets BLPREQ" then it would be deleted but as the !votes are balanced it more or less means it doesn't apply here - Ofcourse it still may be deleted but not under BLPREQ if that makes sense, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is certainly questionable. Subject doesn't want the page and this borderline notability combined equals delete pretty easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- marginal notability and on-going BLP issues. There are two ANI threads related to this article at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 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 redirect to Control rod#Materials. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silver-indium-cadmium[edit]

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

This was essentially a dicdef, with not enough content for an article; a/c the citation (one technical report) it "is commonly used as control rod material in pressurised water reactors" so I redirected to control rod, sne it's a conceivable search term, but I was reverted. I think it's not appropriate to make articles like this based only on appearance of words in a title. Even were it to be expanded, it would still be a type of control rod. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a merge I think. I created the article because it was a red link on the control rod page, as well as on Corium (nuclear reactor). Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – A notable topic that has received significant coverage in scholarly sources. Of note is that silver-indium-cadmium is not "a type of control rod" as stated in the nomination; it is a material used in control rods, and it is notable. This stub can be easily expanded, and in my view, allowing potential for expansion of the article is superior to deleting it, particularly since the topic passes WP:GNG. See source examples below, which provide abstracts of scholarly research. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly sources

Silver-Indium-Cadmium Control Rod Behavior in Severe Reactor Accidents
Silver-indium-cadmium control rod behaviour during a severe reactor accident
Behavior of control rods during core degradation: pressurization of silver-indium-cadmium control rods
Silver-indium-cadmium control rod behavior and aerosol formation in severe reactor accidents
Understanding the behaviour of absorber elements in silver–indium–cadmium control rods during PWR severe accident sequences
Interaction of Molecular Iodine Vapour with Silver-Indium-Cadmium Control Rod Aerosol
Experiments on silver-indium-cadmium control rod failure during severe accident sequences
Corrosion of silver-indium-cadmium in borated high temperature water

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - every one of the references above is talking about control rods made of this mix, and it does not appear to be notable independent of its role in control rods, so it makes sense to redirect. That being said, in an analogous situation we have niobium-titanium, which appears not to be notable independent of superconductors so there is a precedent (or would this be another page that needs reviewed - is this just WP:OTHERSTUFF?). Agricolae (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Redirect to Control rod § Materials which essentially has the same content. I struck my initial keep !vote above. If anyone wants to expand content about silver-indium-cadmium, perhaps it's best done there. If it were to ever be expanded there to the point of becoming too long, it could always be split back out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Control rod. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a card-catalog entry. There's no evidence this will be notable for any reason other than as a material for control rods. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Eyed Girl[edit]

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

Does not satisfy film notability guidelines as an unreleased film. (Text contradicts infobox as to release date.) Nothing is stated as being notable about production of the film. Google search turns up only promotional material, nothing independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - it is no sections and other references. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Looks like a hoax to me.. At the very best it's WP:CRYSTAL. I find no sources on Google talking about a 2018 film from Warner Bros. Waggie (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They're creating other pages, too, using the same ref. Waggie (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Schlappig[edit]

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

Article appears to be self-created; person is not well-known or important within industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.226.106 (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

created using rationale in prod that was added by same ip that added an AFD template. ~ GB fan 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor blogger, most of the references are to his own webpages. Does not appear to meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:27, 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. Sandstein 08:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward R. Tinsley IV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG speedy declined with suggestion to send to AfD Legacypac (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN individual. Lacks support. reddogsix (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a case of attempted notability by association, with no evidence that the subject meets notability guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment maybe someone should try to fix the problems and research on it. Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of effort went into this page, but if the subject does not meet WP:GNG that can't be fixed - unless the subject does something new. Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:39, 6 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.