Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 May	10 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal javed ghumman[edit]

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

Not a notable, significant, or remarkable businessperson. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Creator may have a conflict of interest. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 23:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography with poor sourcing: the references to his employer do not mention the subject and the nearest to an independent reference is a report of a presentation on a start-up site. Fails biographical and more general notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad sources as AllyD says, therefore no scaffolding for an artice. There aren't even articles about the subject's related companies to redirect to. A Train^talk 07:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. cited sources are unreliable, except Express Tribunes and Geo and both doesn't mention the subject at all. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Transport Investments[edit]

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

no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless better sources found. A Google News search turned up little but that may be because the subject will most frequently be written about in a different alphabet. A Train^talk 07:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG unless better sources are found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I Find nothing to support its notability Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:46, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie Tripping[edit]

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

Apparently about a non-notable neologism. While there is a stuff about Hippies tripping a quick google search doesn't seem to indicate that the term itself is notable. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on its own and per WP:NOT#DICT Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:46, 11 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wynes[edit]

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

Nonnotable political activist Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable congressional candidate Power~enwiki (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this page because he is a big time player in Midwest politics regarding Israel and foreign policy and also because it had long been discussed that he was running for Congress. He is officially running now, and being a main candidate in one of the most competitive races in the country certainly warrants notability. This is not just any candidate in any race, it's one that's always targeted nationwide and has millions upon millions funded into it, and is always a nationwide target. Although I think his notability was established prior to running (although I certainly understand why others may not see it the same way) I think it's clear that now his notability is without question. Also with the fact that the Republican candidate has won in the midterm election in this district every time for the last thirty years or so, his legitimacy is certainly there, especially per the ABC coverage. Illinoiswiki10 (talk)
Delete. Wikipedia does not accept candidates for office as automatically notable just for being candidates in and of itself — regardless of how "competitive" the race is perceived to be, we do not base our inclusion criteria on predictions of future accomplishment. Rather, if you cannot show and properly source that the candidate was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat. But this is not demonstrating any preexisting notability, and is based on a mix of primary sources and the purely WP:ROUTINE volume of campaign coverage that would simply be expected to exist for all candidates in all elections — so the volume and depth of coverage is not approaching what it would take to deem his candidacy special for any reason. (The standard for that is Christine O'Donnell, where the coverage exploded so far out of proportion to the routinely expected that her article is actually longer and cites more sources than the article about the guy she lost to does.) No prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins, but nothing here gets him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I (the nominator) want to withdraw my nomination. I'll re-nominate if the Chiefs cut him.--Rockchalk7 17 18:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Monday[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as no sources are available outside of college stat pages and articles that merely mention his name as part of a transaction, also fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he was not drafted and has yet to appear in a regular season game. Fails WP:NCOLLATH as he has not gained national media attention, he's not in any Hall of Fame, and did not win a national award. Definitely a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. If a consensus can't be reached since he was signed by the Chiefs we can wait until the Chiefs decide if they will cut him or keep him. Rockchalk7 17 20:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 10 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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Velour[edit]

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

Lack of relevance. Other queens on the show have also had their pages deleted for lack of relevance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Betty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry. Most of the points still hold up. It's a minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim to notability is having been a contestant on a reality show. I'd understand if she won the season, the winners tend to have more claims to notability but in this case, she hasn't won.

Given the name of the user who first created the page (User:Sashavelour), I'm wondering if it's a promotional thing created by the person themselves. Oath2order (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

del - no independent evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence of notability. The season did not finish yet, and they do not have any significance other than being on the season. Omar Azrak (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)— Omar Azrak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) which seems to be standard policy for reality TV show contestants not notable outside of their show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) given lack of notability outside of the context of the show. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colapeninsula and Aoba74. And yes, it's pretty clearly an autobio. I cleaned it up and added the WP:RS I could find on him, and now there's not much left to show independent notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:49, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rehman (Union Council)[edit]

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

Although the article has news coverage of this one event, I still believe that it should be deleted to conform with WP:BLP -- we can always swing back around to creating the article when more information is verifiable and accurate. -- ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:Politician criteria. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not assert notability Legal Seagull (talk) 12:37, 13 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 deleted as article was created by sock of Romani101 RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AirFair[edit]

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

Purely WP:PROMOtional material, of interest only to clients and shareholders. No third-party indications of notability, and clearly a case of WP:UPE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IdentityMind Global[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Unambiguous promotion, declared COI from the day it was created by an "intern". PROD has been declined, so listing here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMO. speedy G11. Backlog at WP:COIN means less time for BEFORE. Widefox; talk 09:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:WHERESTHEBEEF. This is not a business directory. - Bri (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DZHH[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a defunct radio station. While this was kept in 2010 when it was bundled in with a bunch of other radio and television stations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DZOZ-TV, that was the wrong decision in this particular instance. What passes NMEDIA is not the mere assertion that a radio station was duly licensed and originated some of its own unique programming -- both of those are things that can be and frequently are falsely claimed about stations that actually fail one or both conditions, so per WP:NMEDIA what actually determines whether a radio station gets an article or not is the extent to which we can or can't properly verify those things as true through the use of reliable sources. But seven years after the original discussion, there still isn't hide nor hair of a single source here -- most of the other articles in the original bundle do have sources present, but this one does not. And if we can't verify it, we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. This appears to have been a recent target of the LTA User:Bertrand101 trying to hijack it for yet another hoax Philippine radio station article. In this case the original station appears to have been real, we just don't ahve anythign to show its notability. Meters (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not been able to trace a single reliable source for the existence of this radio station: everything I have found is on wikis, pages that have copied word-for-word from this Wikipedia article, and other such unreliable sources. I am not convinced that the station ever existed, but if it did it is clearly totally non-notable. In either case it is not suitable as the topic of an article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently the station (the original subject, not the hijacked version) did exist at one point (can't verify if it still does), but even if it did, it lacked coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:19, 13 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Claassen[edit]

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

Notability is not given. Looks like self-promotion Bouba20k (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance is given, there are similar entries on wiki for artnet and its founder Hans Neuendorf. Claassen has give various public lectures to give show where the art market and internet go. He is a pioneer in this field with public relevance. 14:24, May 5, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerie 10243 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Germany-related deletion discussions Marek Claassen identified himself as being the author Galerie 10243. It is self-promotion. Also comparing himself with Hans Neuendorf is a bit to much. Neuendorf founded one of the most important post-war galleries and is the co-founder of Art Cologne. --Bouba20k (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably keep, but with a sharp eye: WP:COI may be of concern here and at the related article, and lest they be tended as press releases, there are reliable sources that may be added such as [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:41E8:3E22:766:8808 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, that link is to a blog post. Blog posts are not acceptable for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ArtFacts.Net - I don't see any case for notabliity outside of his website. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable and this is not the place to post one's CV. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:bio Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a founder of a barely notable website and creating a couple of books doesn't confer any notion of notability. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a promotional CV for an unremarkable entrepreneur. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 16 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Onyemaobi[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:YOUTHATH. There were some external references about him I found, but they didn't help clear up notability concerns. Perhaps a TOOSOON situation. South Nashua (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of this time, not notable. Lepricavark (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiographical article with no supported indication of meeting inclusion guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiographical article with no significant independent support. Appears to be an incoming freshman at TCU. No evidence that he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not yet begun collegiate playing career and therefore governed by WP:NHSPHSATH. Not finding the "substantial and prolonged coverage" required by the guideline. This may change as his collegiate career progresses such that WP:NotJustYet may also apply. The article has no substantive content in any event, so no harm if it needs to be recreated later. Cbl62 (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 16 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} 05:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Straub[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, WP:GNG. Google search did not result in sufficient independent sources. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources to support GNG or SNG. Lourdes 17:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every musician has to have an record label or a news paper article. In fact for an encyclopedia "knowledge is power". And he is also a very talented musician. That´s why I made this article of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmetal guitar (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the deletion goes through, redirect again to Kris Straub, as it's a likely misspelling. ~Mable (chat) 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this subject is not covered by any reliable sources, so I definitely approve of it being redirected. ~Mable (chat) 11:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. No indication of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The indications of notability are people like me who listen to his music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmetal guitar (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect per above) Fails WP:BAND. Doesn't seem to have got any reviews in reliable sources in English or German language media, or chart hits or awards, and no other "claim to fame". The albums are self-published (2 albums on a well-known label would indicate notability). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its melodic death metal.. chart hits or awards ??? Are you joking? This is no mainstream music like that stuff on the radio. Just give it a chance. I know that this kind of music is not that popular like radio music. But he makes good stuff in the eyes of a metal head. And like I said...knowledge is power so why not ?Deathmetal guitar (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's now I see this. When an artist (of any genre) is talented and unique, people in his/her immediate surrounding will notice. Other bands or small club promoters will notice through word-of-mouth. There will be club gigs etc. There will posters for those and after a while there will be coverage by fans through social media. Eventually, boutique record labels or bigger promoters will become aware. There will be features at Wacken Open Air. At this point, there should be plenty of google results. At this point, notability is established. I'd also assume for a German musician that there is an article in DE Wiki first. This is not the case. Wikipedia has clear guidelines which have evolved over many years and through lots of controversy, consensus was reached. The result is WP:BAND - which is not achieved in this case. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion to achieve notability. It follows notability._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to do an favor for him :( nothing bad about this I guess. But well then deleted the article and link it back to a guy who doesent anything to do with Chris Straub. Very sad thats wikipedia will get obselete in the future, cause the people will use google more then wiki. And the reasons will be things like this here. And I guess, I didnt make bad work on the article. I looked at other new articles and the most of them are really bad and should be deleted. But the link to a comic guy is and will be not right. So guidlines here guidelines there... wrong is wrong. And I tryed to erease this error. Just think about it. Encyclopedia is a thing which should be completed and not something who does link wrong things.Deathmetal guitar (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it too much, Deathmetal guitar, you did nothing really wrong. Google is a search engine, so it has a completely different purpose than this encyclopedia does. A large percentage of our traffic comes from Google, after all. As Chris Straub gets bigger and more popular, perhaps he'll eventually get noticed by established sources - time will tell :) ~Mable (chat) 10:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, but I think he earns this for his good musical work :)and why not to try ? Even if the article gets deleted I guess I did something good or tried :D. But as fact of notability, there are not so much metal musicians out there which make instrumental death metal so he is a very rare artist in this genere.Deathmetal guitar (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope more people will talk about him then ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 17:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well explained Jake. and yes.... this fails WP:BAND Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a source which is not self-published http://metalsalute.blogspot.de/2017/02/metal-albums-release-in-february-2017.html https://twitter.com/melodicdm_bot/status/765577376604368896 https://twitter.com/melodicdm_bot/status/827065927229329409 Its just a release listing but it is not self-published.Deathmetal guitar (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to weigh in as a "keep" once. Also, a trivial mention in a genre fan blog and in someone's Twitter feed doesn't come close to "significant coverage" criteria worthy of a wikipedia article, regardless of it being independent of the musician in question. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:52, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben & Jerry's ice creams[edit]

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

Generally non-notable list of ice cream flavors. The Table section contains a complete caloric and nutritional breakdown of all their ice cream flavors, which is readily available on the Ben & Jerry's site, so it violates WP:NOTMIRROR. Some of the more "notable" flavors could be merged into the main Ben & Jerry's article.

I'll also point out that this bears considerable resemblance to an article that was deleted 7 years ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ben & Jerry's flavors. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I love Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and I want this to be a good page, but it is not kept up to date has flavors are cycled in and out of their product. And the table contains too many useless columns with hard-to-find information which scares away interested editors (like me). A simple list of names, ingredients and dates would have been better but I'm not touching that table. It's all way out of date now so no page is better than an old page in my opinion. DavidRF (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben & Jerry's; anything useful (i.e. the first section that does contain a bit of cited material) can be picked from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Serves no purpose other than to list a companys' products, complete with overtly promotional descriptions. The article started off as a one line stub in 2011, eventually evolved into a table and then someone copypasted Ben & Jerry's#Original flavors and sundaes. While I cannot see what List of Ben & Jerry's flavors looked like in 2010, I would not be surprised if it were something similar to this. If I wanted to know what flavours and nutritional information a food product had I would visit the brand's website or look at the label, not search for it in an encyclopedia. Redirecting is pointless unless I genuinely wanted to an encyclopedia to host this stuff. What prose is in the list article already exists in the article on the company, leaving nothing to merge. Fuebaey (talk) 03:18, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Whillians[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 by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 14:02, 9 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, with no significant coverage or citations to indicate that the subject meet the notability requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 14 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 X Factor (Denmark season 9). There is not a consensus to delete, but there is a clear consensus for some option other than keeping the article as it is. Redirected and protected against recreation absent a new consensus. bd2412 T 18:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reem (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable reality tv contestant. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9) as it has been for some time and then protect against recreation as this is persistently being recreated. Also do the same for Reem Hamze. anemoneprojectors 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've now protected the redirect Reem Hamze as it was recreated, probably as a way to avoid this AFD. anemone projectors 18:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks AnemoneProjectors - that's a good point. Whatever the decision of this AfD is, it should also apply to Reem Hamze. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment protection may not be needed now as the persistent sockpuppetry has stopped since it was detected and certain accounts were blocked. But if the article is redirected by consensus and then is still recreated, it could be protected then. anemone projectors 10:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - might want to consider salting the article as well, in light of the continued vandalism and disruptive editing on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't see notable citations. Odds of finding notable citation for a reality show contestant seem very slim. Knox490 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO #2 with her single "All That I Want". It charted in the Danish charts at #33 exactly a year ago, according to Hung Medien. Fuebaey (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting single. KaisaL (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer, having a weak charting single only says they may be notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think having a weak charting single in this case shouldn't mean the article is kept - as she still clearly fails WP:GNG. For the UK version of The X Factor, we create lists of contestants such as List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) because they're mostly not notable enough for an independent article. If our sockpuppet had done this, it wouldn't have been so bad. Or if the article actually had some information about this Reem person, rather than just a table and a list with one entry, then I might be changing my mind. If The X Factor is as big in Denmark as it is in the UK, there should be some interest in the contestants and some information, but it may take a Danish speaker to find this. Or maybe we could look to the Danish Wikipedia for inspiration (da:Reem). anemone projectors 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This Afd was closed, but brought to Deletion Review. The result of that review was to find no fault with the original close per-se, but relist given the discovery of additional sources (which are listed on the DRV page), so I've backed out the previous close. This third relisting period should be used to evaluate those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. A low placing on one country chart doesn't mean all our policies get tossed out the window, especially as we'd be left with a (very dangerous) unreferenceable BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Barfoed, Jirina (2016-10-28). "Reem i ny rolle foran kameraet". Se og Hør (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  There is full speed ahead of Reem Hamze after she participated in "X Factor" where she ended up in a super nice second place. Since then she has a record contract with Sony Music, and then she landed the job as a museum for Cecilie Bahnsen, who won the Danish Design Talent prize and half a million kroner yesterday.
2. Olsen, Maria Rode (2016-02-27). "X Factor-Reem elsker at danse". Billed Bladet (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  Reem had challenged herself in Friday's "X Factor" live show by not only singing the song "Lost in the girl", but also showing her skills on a dance floor at the same time.
  It was in collaboration with judge Mette Lindberg that the 17-year-old soloist had come to impress with choreography during his performance.
  ...
  Throughout the eight years, there has been room for a bit of each, but it is primarily the hip-hop, freestyle and dancehall genre that Reem likes most.
  She has been taught at several dance schools in Zealand, and now she is dancing with a friend at a youth school approximately twice a week.
3. Vestergaard, Andreas Erboe (2016-03-04). "Reem afslører: Jeg var totalt pinligt berørt over at skulle synge". BT (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  
  Reem is born and raised in Denmark. Half of her family lives in Palestine, and the other half lives in Lebanon. It was on a holiday in Lebanon, where they visited the family that, as a 12-year-old, she was ready to give her a testimony of her huge song talent. In front of his father's family. That is, his nine siblings and their children, which meant a total of 30-35 people. The mother's 13 siblings and their children were not present in the small apartment. It was the parents idea that she should sing in front of the big family. They had noticed the extraordinary talent of the daughter - but only unfolded within the four walls of the home in Valby near Copenhagen. It was a big mouthful for a little girl who was very shy at that time.
  ...
  Reem participates in this year's 'X Factor', and she has by-law judges and Denmark by storm. The teenager has Managed to touch Judge Mette Lindberg to tears with his incredible voice, which leads to Amy Winehouse - the now-deceased English song star, to which Reem everywhere is compared.
  ...
  In the past many hours have been spent in the dance room. For eight years, the sporty girl went to dance and folded Out in hip hop. The combination of singing and dancing is also something she admires with Beyoncé, Rihanna, Jennifer Lopez and Amy Winehouse, who she has been compared to.
4. Hansen, Jan Lambæk (2016-04-02). "Reportage: Mest spændende X Factor-finale til dato". Gaffa (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  
  This year's X Factor is also exciting because the show has a participant who has shown internationally from the start. I'm thinking of the favorite Reem. In addition to a nice voice and a strong singing talent, she also has the ability to occupy the entire room when she is on stage. You are quickly drawn to her self-confidence and charm. And thanks to her dance skills, she also knows how to move on a scene.
  ...
  After a short videoconference, Reem shows up and opens the living space with Zara Larsson's "Never Forget You". ...
  ...
  My high expectations for Reem are happily fulfilled as she performs the Bieber / Skrillex hit "Where Are You Now?". Judge Mette Lindberg was quite right when she initially said that Reem wanted to show everything she could. She is lost. She is a 17-year-old green poll, but acts like a diva. Diva in the cool way. She has so much authority and is undoubtedly the biggest, and perhaps the first real, X Factor star in Denmark.
  ...
  However, Reem puts its competitors on the wall when she sings Lukas Graham's vocal on "Golden" along with Brandon Beal . Not only because of her singing talent, but also because of her stage performance. Even Christopher , whom she also has a duet with, must bow in the dust. Reem is born to stand on a stage. And she will also be exciting in 30 years.
  ...
  Unfortunately, Reem's potential win song "All That I Want" is a boring case. It is screwed together in a pop-up machine without spark. A number you soon forget. And it seems she does not feel at home in that number. Could she even think about it? Still, I see her as a winner, and the faster she can get rid of the X Factor links, the better for a real music career.
5. "By night med X Factor". da:Morsø Folkeblad (in Dutch). 2016-08-03. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  For a long time, Reem Hamze was considered a favorite to win X Factor, with the best odds on Danish Games. In the final on April 1, 2016, Reem had to finish second in the song contest. However, she was offered a plate contract immediately after the end. Gaffa's reviewer rated her with "She has so much authority and is undoubtedly the biggest, and perhaps first real, X Factor star in Denmark." Reem's voice has been compared to Amy Winehouses.
6. Ellegaard, Christian (2016-02-27). "Tak far: Derfor er Reem med i X Factor" (in Dutch). DR. Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  Friday after Friday, 17-year-old Reem shines on stage when she sings and dances on in X Factor.
  And the young singer - and the Danish television viewers - have one particular person to thank Reem today for the X Factor scene.
  Namely Reem's father.
  According to Reem, her father's merit was that the 17-year-old star spy discovered that her singing talent stretched beyond the usual.
  On a holiday he asked Reem to sing for the rest of the family, and afterwards her family was speechless about the young girl's singing talent.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reem to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RoySmith (talk · contribs), for your kind words at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 1. In the spirit of discussing the sources as your close implores, I'll start. Among other sources, Reem has received significant coverage in Billed Bladet, a 150,000 circulation magazine that is one of the oldest magazines in Denmark; and DR, a Danish public-service organization that is Denmark's oldest and largest electronic media enterprise. I think the coverage in longstanding reputable Denmark sources strongly establishes that Reem passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Cunard's discovered sources clearly meet the WP:MUSICBIO bar and should be incorporated into the article. A Train^talk 12:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep weak because I'm having a hard time evaluating the reliability of the sources. But coverage looks deep enough to meet WP:N assuming the sources are reliable. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I closed this yesterday since it appeared to me that new sources spawned a blizzard, however I was asked by the original closing admin Scottywong to reconsider. In light of the deletion review closing with an explicit instruction to review and discuss the new sources, I am reverting my close so that discussion of those sources may continue. For the purposes of administration, this is not a relist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I also recreated the redirect Reem Hamze yesterday, but did not carry up semiprotection as it does not appear necessary on the redirect at the moment. It should go as this goes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Mjbmr (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (updated to "redirect", pls see below) -- according to sources presented, the singer has just been offered a contract. When Reem releases a notable album, then it would be appropriate to have an article. Otherwise, WP:TOOSOON. Sources presented at this AfD are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject, as in:

According to Reem, her father's merit was that the 17-year-old star spy discovered that her singing talent stretched beyond the usual. On a holiday he asked Reem to sing for the rest of the family, and afterwards her family was speechless about the young girl's singing talent.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, the two !votes above aren't really looking at the sources. Rather it's more of a "WP:JNN" argument (well one is 100% that). Hobit (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I've looked at the sources. In fact, I've quoted from the sources: "According to Reem, her father's merit was..." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did. And it's a JNN argument from what I can tell. We don't much care why she's notable. Only that the sources are in depth, reliable and independent. That a quote comes from her father doesn't make the source doing the quoting "not independent" in any way. I suspect we have books on former presidents that quote their parents. Doesn't invalidate the source. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I barely find any sources in English. Mjbmr (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is also irrelevant to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is actually, there is not enough coverage to prove notability. Mjbmr (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no requirement that the sources be in English. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say that, but to me which I gave my opinion, should found enough coverage to be notable for English Wikipedia. Mjbmr (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the statement ...sources are in depth, reliable and independent. That a quote comes from her father doesn't make the source doing the quoting "not independent" in any way. The quote comes from Reem ("according to Reem...") -- this is the definition of a non-independent source. Interviews in general are not SIGCOV sources for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9) as it has been for some time and then protect against recreation. (Updated iVote). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9). The sources presented, IMO, do not constitute enough reliable significant coverage for a stand-alone article. Protection is an option if this is going to keep getting re-created. Reyk _YO! 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9). coverage inadequate to support notability.10:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9). I strongly support K.e.coffman's proposal to protect against recreation as well. Ifnord (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9) per above. Semiprotect the redirect only if it becomes evident that users will not respect this consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 18 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LDN Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion and referenced primarily by primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator generously says "primarily" primary sources but it's exclusively primary sources. Google News turns up only event listings in local newspapers, many of them several years old. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG, sadly. A Train^talk 12:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. Article completely lacking in third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Gate UK[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion and unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT; only of interest to the readers of a few select blogs, zines and one passing mention of one contender in one semi-reliable soure (a local paper). Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as no depth or duration of coverage. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Soni[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable 22-yr-old actor and model, speedied twice already for A7 and G11, but speedy was declined this time. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL, and I can't find a single mention of her online in WP:RS. Autobio creator describes herself as "an upcoming personality" in this edit. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Facebook and a dead link aren't sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found. Too soon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON fails WP:GNG WP:BIO looks more like promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Lin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources currently in article doesn´t come close to WP:GNG. Also, IMDB has the same image, I wonder if we can use it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no mentions at all in reliable sources and no depth or persistence of coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:48, 9 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 Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stone of Farewell[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Online results are advertisements. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a relatively known author, and so his books will get reviews. Giving that we keep video games with the same rationale, I think stuff like [2]. [3] or [4] is more than sufficient. Not noticing those seems also like a fail of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator - it's pretty easy to type in "williams review Stone of Farewell" into Google.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Are you sure about those sources? Do they pass Identifying reliable sources?--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Probably as much as anything listed on the super-inclusive Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If we can have an article about every minor game that got 1-2 reviews, I don't see why we should be more strict regarding books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising, to say the least, to see an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument made for a completely different form of expression, as if video game articles have any relevance to young adult fantasy fiction. If there is a problem with the videogame sources, it should be dealt with at the relevant page, not battled out in unrelated AfD discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, the parent series. This unsourced article is nothing but a fan's plot description and the only available review sources, including those linked above, are from fantasy/scify blogs and Amazon reviews. no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and therefore no independent notabilty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per eggishorn; isufficient reliavle sources in third-party, independent coverage to indicate standalone notability. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:59, 9 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray K Iles[edit]

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

Not seeing sufficient evidence of notability. And it reads like spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GS h-index of 27 in very highly cited field (with lots of coauthors) just passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete tries to hang N on the company but N is not inherited. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Xxanthippe Dloh cierekim 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam: "... a medical diagnostics company developing new, rapid, robust and affordable diagnostic tests...". Wikipedia is not a web host for company's promotional materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails GNG, and article is lousy (not as much as Naziism in US, tho) but per Xxanthippe. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:34, 10 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. WP:G5 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skyhook1 NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combination launch system[edit]

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

This article reads like a personal essay speculating about a potential combination of four technologies to achieve more efficient or more economical orbital launches. Each of these technologies is covered by relevant Wikipedia articles, for example Air launch to orbit and Skyhook (structure), but I failed to find any WP:RS grouping them under the moniker "combination launch system". I only found a discussion of this approach on a personal web site by Mr. Eagle Sarmont which promotes this concept and the author's book discussing it. An article about that book, recently created by the same editor, is currently being considered for deletion per lack of notability. Finally, the part about Chinese archers having "invented" combination launch system by attaching gunpowder rockets to their arrows is just… bizarre. — JFG ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jonah and the Whale (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (I created the article)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psy from the Psycho World![edit]

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

This article has only one source, which is a store (iTunes). It is used for just the release date of the album and may not be reliable. No other citations have been added since January 2013. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Notable singer but not a notable album. My searches for reliable sources came up blank.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently his debut album had an issue with the censors - [5] and [6] (in Korean). That and it made more than 100k in sales, which I'm thinking might meet WP:NALBUM #3. Should at least redirect to Psy discography. Fuebaey (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 13 14 English language citations and text sections on the release, controversy and reception. I found many more major publications referencing it as the first album, and slightly mentioning the controversy. I have not yet researched Korean language sources, and that may not be necessary with the amount of material available in English. Although I'm sure the merits of each of Psy's albums and whether they deserve a place on WP are variable, I believe this first album an important and critical one for his music history.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all the sources are actually written for the album but it obviously has worth in describing Psy's music career.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the recent expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this even a topic anymore? Everything about this album's article is absolutely fine now. Can someone please close this AfD? OblivionWingTech (talk) 21:36, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Hampshire County, West Virginia[edit]

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

This is a list of most (all?) roads in Hampshire County, West Virginia, except for streets in towns. Some may be of a little local importance, but most of them are just ordinary little country roads without a hope of notability. Do we really need a full directory of these roads? There are a few other lists of this sort for other counties; if this nomination results in deletion, I plan to nominate the others. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists of county routes are fine to have, as long as these routes do not get individual articles. Dough4872 10:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a list of roads without any context. I'd like to know why they're notable, how the routes are numbered, and be able to verify it with references. I feel like West Virginia county roads would be better covered in a capstone article that doesn't yet exist. –Fredddie ™ 11:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea to have a capstone article about the county route system in West Virginia but we should also have by-county lists. This list may be not in the best shape but that should not be a reason to delete it. We should improve it not delete it. Dough4872 11:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it fine to have such a list? Why can't we have huge lists of other non-notable things, then? Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County routes are notable enough for a list since the county bothered to number them in a system. However, only the group is notable and individual routes are generally not notable enough for individual articles. Any type of roads below numbered/lettered county routes are generally not notable enough to be covered in even a list. Dough4872 12:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works; WP:GNG still applies. This list provides zero context for why they're notable. None. –Fredddie ™ 19:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As long as the county route system is set up like County roads in Florida, County roads in Minnesota, or County routes in New York, then all counties should have a list page and be kept. The routelist templates should be used. There are other states that have county highways that don't have any pages to cover them, like Alabama, which has a very extensive county route system. I believe every state's county highways should be covered in lists like these. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "set up like Florida, Minnesota, or New York"? It sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I want to be sure that's what you meant. –Fredddie ™ 19:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that we should have a system of lists embracing basically every road in the state, outside municipalities. Why not have a similar set of lists for all the streets in municipalities? And response to Dough — whether or not the county bothered to number them is irrelevant to notability, irrelevant to whether we should have a directory of them. What if the county numbered roads maintained by other entities, e.g. townships? That's what's done in some Pennsylvania counties; go to Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, and you'll see road numbers in small print on the name signage for roads out in the townships. What's more, they're just numbered for administrative purposes, since everybody uses the road names in Lawrence County. Is it appropriate to have a full list of such non-notable roads for the whole county, and if it is, how would such a list not be a violation of WP:NOTDIR? Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally consider county routes the lowest tier of numbered route systems that should be covered in a list. Township roads, even if in a lettered/numbered system, are too local in nature to get even lists. Dough4872 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. County route systems that are not numbered uniquely as part of a state scheme are not notable. V C 23:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Neither the individual roads nor the countywide collection of roads appear to have independent and reliable sources with significant coverage as needed to satisfy general notability. Some editors love to create complete lists of named or numbered things, but that is not consistent with WP:NOT. The ability to verify their existence is insufficient to justify their appearance in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of every verifiable thing, or we would have similar articles about "The firetrucks of Smithville" or "The mailboxes of Jonesville," when there is an official listing of firetrucks by model, number, age and firestation, or mailboxes by street address. There are many nonnotable but verifiable sets of things operated by governments which do not belong in encyclopedias. Edison (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus with the above examples is that county roads can be notable enough for a list but are not generally notable enough for individual articles unless they satisfy WP:GNG. There have been multiple discussions on this subject in the past. Nominator's arguments apply to the notability of individual roads, and are a good explanation of why they are not individually notable, but that is not the issue here. Smartyllama (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR and county roads fail WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are four other WV county route articles like this as well as a general navigational list: List of county routes in West Virginia. Should they all be added to the AfD debate? Ajf773 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see what happens with this discussion. Nyttend said he intended to nominate other lists if this one is deleted. I do not think the discussion would be helped much with the addition of a few more similar lists. V C 02:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morriswa and Smartyllama. The individual roads are almost always not notable and shouldn't have articles, an article on the county road system, which includes a general list, is notable. Such an article can be built off here. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability still has to be established, which has not occurred to date. –Fredddie ™ 20:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's something might actually be useful! Lots and lots of articles on roads by region in Wikipedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. Some counties consider every road to be a county road. Should we keep around lists of those? No. There has to be some standard of notability. I would be happy to reconsider if some secondary sources/notability were given here, but I'm not seeing it, so I have to vote delete. --Rs chen 7754 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence has been provided for nominator's assertion that this list includes all roads in the entire county. And considering there are only about 200-250 roads listed, it seems unlikely that that is the case. By contrast, Virginia, which numbers all roads in most counties (though they are technically state roads) has numbers in the thousands, and even the tens of thousands in a few counties. So it seems highly unlikely that this includes every single road in the county. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples and oranges. Virginia has way more people than West Virginia does. --Rs chen 7754 18:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A simple Google Maps search for "Hampshire County, West Virginia" shows numerous minor streets which do not appear on the list and are not numbers in Google maps, and a couple which are numbered in Google Maps and correspondingly appear in the list. It is clear that this does not include every single street in the county, as a similar list in Virginia would. I urge those who voted on that basis to reconsider. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you really suggesting that people who !voted per WP:NOTDIR should reconsider because it's not a complete list? Should we just ignore #7 in NOTDIR? –Fredddie™ 21:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm suggesting that those who voted because it's a complete list of every single road in the county, while saying articles about counties in other states where this is not the case are notable, should reconsider because that's not how West Virginia defines county roads. It is a complete list of county roads in the county. That does not include every single road in the county, nor is it intended to. After looking it over, Rschen7754 is the only one who voted on those grounds. My apologies for suggesting there are others. I would still encourage him to reconsider, but your vote, while I disagree with it, is not based on false premises, so I would consider it reasonable. I disagree with it, but reasonable people can disagree. Smartyllama (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I am willing to change my rationale to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but without some profound argument, I will not change my overall stance, regardless of whether the list contains 100 percent or 70 percent or even 40 percent of the roads in Hampshire County. V C 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Smartyllama, please read my vote (and the nominator's rationale) carefully. I don't think anyone voted delete "because it's a complete list of every single road in the county". --Rs chen 7754 00:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are WP:MILL roars, no indication that the topic as such is discussed in sources and meets WP:NLIST. Sandstein 06:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. I think when we choose to have lists of individual items, sometimes each is individually notable and in some cases each is not, but this is reaching too far down the notability ladder for inclusion. I don't think anyone would argue if this was numbered state roads, but this is only 1/2 step up from list of every paved road in a county, and I think this is simply too much minutia for an encyclopedia, and is of dubious value to the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:UNSOURCED: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. As happens to be the case here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a content issue, not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not believe so. If the content is not sourced, then it's notability is questionable at best. And if there is no evidence for notability, then it becomes a deletion issue.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one reference. How is this information even verifiable? Not notable so fails the basic criteria for existence. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:59, 24 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 merge to Tour of the Gila. Herostratus almost saves the article, providing sources, but does not overcome the 1E argument. WP is not a memorial, true, and death does not automatically make one notable. A merge was offered but at the time there was little to merge; after Herostratus's contribution, however, there is. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Young[edit]

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

I have no wish to denigrate this young man's memory or to cause upset to his family and friends, but riders at CT level are not generally considered to meet notability guidelines. There was no apparent interest in considering his nascent career worthy of an article while he was alive, and his tragic death has not been considered widely newsworthy beyond the limited scope of cycling media. A desperately sad situation, but Wikipedia articles should not be created as memorials. Kevin McE (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may not be notable for what he did riding, but the event of his death is notable, as this is a major event in cycling, and was all over the news. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be expanded with information found in the Spanish Wikipedia. Furthermore, his death has been receiving coverage as it has become a major event in the cycling area as @Seacactus 13: says. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable by its death. Fortunately I had the occasion to take him in photo not very far from my house. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death does not establish notability. No third-party coverage beyond his death (several search results turned up an NFL player of the same name), and in all probability the way that he died and the event itself is why it's in the news as much as it is. Sports-related fatalities are going to make headlines no matter who is involved, before they're ultimately forgotten. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Just wanted to add that his death was mentioned in multiple articles about riders safety like news piece about UCI asking Giro d'Italia organizers to remove dangerous new classification for fastest descender. He will come up in future mentions along Wouter Weylandt and Antoine Demoitié. --Papuass (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable only for his death = WP:ONEEVENT. I'd say merge to Tour of the Gila, but there is nothing to merge - his death should be mentioned in the event, sure, but as for himself, there is nothing to say except that he suffered an accident during the race. Sad, but doesn't make him encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of people die every day, especially on the roads. This is a WP:ONEEVENT article. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being notable only for his death = merge into the relevant article (per Piotrus). Per Papuass, the mentioned articles could be added in that article as well. A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT where having a separate article does not help the reader - per this there's no page that really links to this one anyway except some arbitrary lists or the rider's team article. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What WP:GNG wants is "multiple" instances of "in depth" coverage (and IMO helps a lot if it is a "notable" source rather than a local paper). Well here is the Denver Post (big notable paper) with a fairly in-depth biography, several paragraphs describing where he went to school and so forth. As to other mentions, Here is Australia, passing mention though. The wire services picked it up, and the Arizona Republic and the the Los Angeles Times and NBC sports picked it up. Notable venues, but passing mention of him, only described in relation to the crash. Possibly article should be renamed to Death of Chad Young maybe. It's true that the Spanish Wikipedia has a longer article, but not really better refs than the one I described here. My take is:

You've got somewhat in-depth coverage in the Denver Post, a notable paper.
And mentions, at least describing in him, in the LA Times and other notable papers.
And of course he is described or at least mentioned at cycling sites worldwide, like Spain, and Australia we saw earlier. Here is slightly in-depth coverage, couple paragraphs, although in a cycling-specific venue not notable in the wider world. here's his page at Pro Cycling Stats, with his stats and vital statistics.

It's enough, IMO, when you put it all together, for him to squeak by WP:GNG. Herostratus (talk) 17:05, 9 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Mag[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine / media company. No coverage in any reliable sources whatsoever; only their own website, magazine and press releases (i.e. self-published and primary). So fails WP:ORGCRITE which requires independent, third-party sourcing of persistent and indepth coverage. This indicates neither; not notable. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and fails WP:NMEDIA Razer^{Text me} 12:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "dedicated to supporting and promoting emerging artists..." is pure WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure to adhere to basic notability guidelines. Primary sources are also heavily frowned upon. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lead section cites multiple point of distinction, supported by relevant sources. 'Arts' section cites creation of custom typeface by third party, notable as per WP:CREATIVE. Coverage in multiple reliable source such as The Guardian and Vice Media Stan.charles84 (talk) 14:29 15 May 2017 (ET) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: --- Specifically cites creating "award winning work", backed up with relevant references. This is explicit evidence of notability as per the notability guidelines for newspapers, magazines and journals in WP:NMEDIA sp1987 (talk) 09:25 16 May 2017 (AEST) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — sp1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: - Several instances of coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian and Australian Broadcasting Company youth radio channel triple j, so notable as per WP:ORGCRITE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.white (talk • contribs) — K.white (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom, and failing WP:NMEDIA. If one discounts the keep votes by "editors" who have only appeared in this AfD, the consensus is unanimous. Ifnord (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the subject fails WP:NMEDIA. The references list is a joke, it's all the magazine itself and one other non-notable pub. Not even close, in my mind. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Actually surprised this hasn't been closed yet.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 18 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other similar pages. We should not keep any pages that have no any content and references other than data taken from a single internet database. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 11 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 draftified. If deletion of the draft is still desired, please nominate it at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 Gante 30 Dina 30 Second[edit]

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

Not notable film production Cahk (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead: no article-> no deletion. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved to Draft:3 Gante 30 Dina 30 Second. clpo13_(talk) 21:57, 9 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 deleted as an obvioux hoax, and not this editor's first one either. Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Communist Action[edit]

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

Short version: this purported "network in the United States of America, Canada, and some parts of Europe" does not exist.

Long version: this article would appear to fail any number of policies and guidelines.

To start with, I would argue that it fails the WP:General notability guideline. It is not a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
In also fails the criteria for an organization Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject
If it is only an internet phenomenon, it would also fail the WP:WEB test.

This entire article appears to be sourced - such as those sources are - from a YouTube channel and a sidengo.com page, a free website host akin to Weebly.

This contains text copied from those policies and guidelines mentioned here.
Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 9 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 both this title and Asim Malik to which it had been redirected as blatant CoI, unreferenced bio. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr-AasimMalik. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ProfDrAasimMalik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ignoring obvious problems with the title for now. Kleuske (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Page moved to Asim Malik concurrently. Kleuske (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Dr-AasimMalik - self promotion without any evidence of notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has now been speedy deleted db-a10, as a duplicate of Dr-AasimMalik, which is listed on a separate AFD. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:39, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tye[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. The main source is IMDb which is a source with questionable reliability (see WP:CITINGIMDB). The other source is a blog. The claim that he is the second vlogger in China is also questionable. Simonliyiyu (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - I did a quick Google search for this individual, and the only hit for him is IMDb, which is considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia standards. The other hits are to his self-published Instagram. The Google Scholar links do not appear to be associated with the person in question. After narrowing the search with the keyword "China", the only significant and reliable coverage of this vlogger is from a Forbes article on the hazards of making friends in China. The individual appears notable only for a single event and this fails WP:NOT § NEWS (see what Wikipedia is not). The claim that he is the second vlogger in China is totally unsubstantiated by any sources. Inkedotly (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Inkedotly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Plenty of vloggers out there, this one clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. Agree with nom. Dkoenig9352 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Dkoenig9352 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking sockpuppets of nominator per SPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT. Promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. My searches for sources did not return substantial coverage about the subject. He fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above editors. Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree the article is poorly sourced, however as for failing the GNG please review these@K.e.coffman, Xxanthippe, Cunard, and Onel5969:: on Yibada, thasmags, thebejinger, miltech. Seeing as this was a poor nomination like Sturzel the nominator's rationale and motvies are not to be trusted. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the ping. Not impressed with the sources, however. Yibada is questionable as to whether or not it's a RS. The article you cite seems to come from an outside contributor. Thatsmags is a marketing company. Beijinger is a blog. And Miltech is press release. So I don't think there's a single independent reliable source there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 15 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 and salt. Kurykh (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Martell[edit]

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

Lack of WP:Independent sources about this person means he fails WP:BIO. Really the original AfD rationale still stands. See also WP:FRINGEBLP and possible WP:VANITY issues. There may be some projects (such as GodTube) with which he is involved that are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED relevant here. jps (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a crank, but is he a generally notable one? The links provided are all either Martell's own stuff or equally embarrassing websites. Coast-to-coast-am is apparently a paranormal focused radio. Failing any mainstream discussion, I don't see how he passes WP:BIO. At the very least, if the article somehow escapes deletion, it should give a critical representation of WP:FRINGE views, which is not achieved in the current lead. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like the previous attempt, deleted in 2007. Does this need to be salted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaarmyvet (talk • contribs)
- Signed unsigned comment. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Only self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. We do represent fringe, if its notable. However, to add to the above, he has a raft of books, audiobooks, DVDs, etc., all of which WorldCat shows single digit or very low (< dozen) double-digit holdings. Agricola44 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Coast to Coast AM" is indeed a paranormal (and broader fringe) focused radio show, and that's the closest thing to a mainstream source the article contains. Fails notability requirements as stated several times already. Two AfDs deciding to delete is almost salting on its own, and while I am not strongly in favor of salting here I wouldn't object to it, either. Roches (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: per Gamall. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Deleted once already, and nothing has changed. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 16 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-deleted (A7, G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr-AasimMalik[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProfDrAasimMalik. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources found. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be self promotion. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for goodness sake. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all name variants: A WP:SPA article on a man with a job. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11 and A7 it won't claim the importance of a subject and it promotional 38.96.9.224 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald C Chow[edit]

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

This is an article about a student. While he has done some feats. It's not enough to meet notability. There is not enough independent sources to show it as well. While I am sure he will make a real name for himself one day. Reb1981 (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. @Reb1981: Actually, if google scholar pans out, he is probably notable. My concern is the google scholar hits look too good to be true.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:I am having trouble finding more sources on him. It's not for my like of trying. That google scholar is about the only thing I can find. Maybe when more get on here we can figure it out. Reb1981 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Many hands make light work.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I see no way to distinguish this Ronald Chow from any others, and the article is egregiously promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About the only strong evidence of notability here is the Google Scholar hits — and as written, this article doesn't actually make any claim about him that would enable us to properly verify that the Google Scholar hits are correctly for him, rather than an accidental conflation of two or more different people with similar names. (For example, the Google Scholar results seem to wobble all over the place from cancer research to dementia research to studies of helmet use among cyclists — what could Chow possibly be studying at Western that crosses over all three of those distinctly unrelated topics? Neither this biography nor even the Google Scholar page tells us what his major is, for starters, and even the LinkedIn page linked from Google Scholar just says the generic "medical science" rather than being sufficiently specific either — just like this article, it also places much stronger emphasis on his community involvement résumé than it does on anything that might make him notable as a medical researcher.) So, long story short, we need much stronger verification than this before we can consider him notable for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Such is what my disquietude is made from.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims in article not established. Possible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I have no reason to doubt the citation record, but so far it looks prolific but not especially impactful (many papers, low citation numbers) and therefore not passing WP:PROF#C1. It is perhaps interesting that an undergraduate medical intern has been so prolific, but if it were notable it would only be through WP:GNG, and we don't have the sources for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick spot check suggests that another person named Edward Chow, who is a professor at the same institution (Sunnybrook, Toronto), also appears on most of these papers...or it's probably more accurate to say that Ronald Chow appears on all of Edward Chow's papers, the latter probably being the father of the former, although I could not conclusively demonstrate this hypothesis. If there is such a relationship, it would basically invalidate any claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I though it imaginable that Edward has added his name to Ronald's papers to give them a chance of being published, but almost all are work with multiple other authors. There's a few single-author papers like "A pilot project of an online cross-age tutoring program – Crescent school virtual learning (vLearning)" -- this could indeed be something a student might do, and there are a few related studies of young adults in various towns in Ontario--see the link to the book, and note the publisher. See also the other people in the "meet our team link". DGG ( talk ) 12:43, 16 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 rename to Nehme (surname). (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nehme family[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I'm not sure what the correct page name is. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (updated Power~enwiki (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Rename but to Nehme (surname) as orthographic variations ill-suited for a disambiguation. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This particular family includes politicians/statesmen, businessmen, artists, authors and even saints and has various media published on the matter. Wikinationman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomai Kezios[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the W-League is top-level, it is not fully professional, and so the player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Fails WP:GNG as well - only two items in gnews. St Anselm (talk) 22:37, 11 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Game[edit]

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

Does not show any notability. This should be merged or deleted. Reb1981 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't even figure out what game this supposed to be about. I'm not finding it at BGG (at least not by Steve Jackson). If someone can find something useful here, ping me and I'll take another look. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty sure this is fake. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a duplicate of Dragonriders of Pern boardgame. Not appropriate for redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
see also Dragonriders of Pern boardgame. wbm1058 (talk) 23:25, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Burning Pillar (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ainscow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. There is extremely low coverage, and all those are not independent sources, mention him in passing as someone with an official funcion and/or are broad statistics databases. This player might seem to meet WP:NSPORTS, but the assumption of notability isn't correct, in this case. Burning Pillar (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Happy to be proven wrong here, as my knowledge of the finer details of English football aren't what they used to be, but if he played for a team in a "fully-professional league", WP:NFOOTY tells me he's notable. Unless I'm misreading something, he did precisely that, did he not? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BigHaz. Ainscow played in the Football League 23 times and so easily passes WP:NFOOTY. The nominator's points have already been addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline and long-standing consensus and discussion have led to where we are now. I should add that pointy nominations like this don't help your case on that page. Keresaspa (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should also be noted that the nominator already went through this process little over a month ago and the overwhelming consensus was keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Ainscow. All the points raised there remain equally relevant now. Probably should speedy close this one. Keresaspa (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first deletion discussion was about meeting WP:NSPORTS and failing WP:NOT; not about WP:GNG.Burning Pillar (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS:The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline was closed with a procedural close, so I don't get why you think that the points were somehow adressed!Burning Pillar (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a horse in the race as far as the RFC is concerned, I'd point out that I don't see how a procedural closure saying (in effect) "this is going to go nowhere in terms of changing consensus" is an endorsement for changing the current status quo. Had there been anything but that in the closure of the RFC, you'd be right in what you're saying here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NFOOTY tells you that it is likely that he is notable. You all probably made the mistake most people make: They read WP:NFOOTY without reading WP:NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines, which tells you that the article is still supposed to meet the WP:GNG, and I mentioned above why it does not. It isn't too surprising that we don't have that much coverage if the statistics provided are indeed correct:23 appearances with 4 goals as forward in Football League Third Division aren't something that usually generates significant coverage in reliable independent sources.Burning Pillar (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a form of forum-shopping WP:FORUMSHOP, making the same proposal only a few weeks after being declined. Accept the consensus and move on. Secondly, as Ainscow's career was pre-internet, WP:BEFORE requires you to make a reasonable search of off-line sources. You make no mention in either AFD of any such search. As for your argument about WP:GNG, the topic is not required to meet both WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, just one or the other. To quote WP:GNG:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline... [my emphasis]
Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed fall into the trap.

1. Per WP:N An article must meet either GNG or SNG.

2. The SNG WP:NSPORTS tells you that the article needs to meet the GNG.

3. Conclusion: The article needs to meet the GNG.

And about WP:BEFORE: Read it again. Especially D. Yeah, there could be some not so easily accessible sources. However, they were not added in the many years of the article's existance, so it is a reasonable assumption that they don't exist.Burning Pillar (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, that logic doesn't work. Reading from the very top of the NSPORTS page, we see the following (in bold, no less). "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Being that there are reliable sources showing that he meets the second criterion of the criteria for footballers (and, strangely enough, that there were the same things a month and a bit ago), we can therefore conclude that he does indeed meet the "sport specific criteria set forth below", which means he's fine. But let's not stop there. Second paragraph, same page: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)". The wording there is pretty clear, I'd say. In the event that the subject doesn't meet the specific criteria, then we need to turn to GNG (or his notability may stem from something else, but that's another story), rather than the other way around. This was what the rules were a month and a bit ago before you had a shot at changing them, which didn't work out. Assuming the inevitable here, will there be another RFC and the renomination of this article a third time? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. See... what it says is that you can assume that the subject does meet the GNG, but this presumption is dubious here. And if you read WP:NFOOTY, then you can see that this player meets a criterion that is not that reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article passed an AfD less than 2 months ago started by the same user. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he played at a fully professional level. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 9 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romi Rain[edit]

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

Porn actress that fails WP:PORNBIO without qualifying awards and fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Citations in the article don't support the content. Despite claims in the article, the only significant award win is a scene-related XBIZ Award. An independent search for sources yielded trivial mentions, cast listing and lots of press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as tons of sources online[7] (Granted not all are brilliant however notability is certainly there), Has won a significent award and therefore passes PORNBIO #1 as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of these hits consist of photos with captions, cast lists, and other passing mentions. Again, a raw GNews search dump is not helpful without identifying specific, non-trivial RS coverage. As for a significant award win, please identify it. NightMoves does not qualify. The actress has several AVN Award nominations but no wins. And scene-related award wins are excluded from PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Women in the porn biz won't get coverage from The Times and WaPo. Quick google search her name comes up in a Las Vegas Sun article [8] where she's mentioned in a way she's a name drop draw for the event. I'm sure she's notable in the porn biz, those that follow porn and their stars, but the RS by WP standards is thin at best. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per Davey2010, sheer volume of nominations, like Susan Lucci. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking more thoroughly, doesn't seem to be supported. Now I think it should be kicked back to Draft space with a deadline to improve. Draft space work is automatically deleted after a time if not improved. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's extremely accurate analysis. Laced with BLP violations, utterly phony citations and unreferenced publicist prose. This is not an article, but an act of vandalism. How brazen? The article claims the subject won four AVN Awards in 2017. Not only does AVN itself say she won none [9], but several of the categories she "won" in, like the "Fan Award : Best BJ Giver", don't even exist. Speedy Delete as G3, because other than identifying her as a porn performer, virtually everything else here is laced with "blatant and obvious misinformation" and because deliberately creating a deceptive article should be treated as vandalism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
get rid even if kept (why? Its fails gng and pornbio) this article is full of untruths and nonsense and would need tnt - before that it needs sources. Has anyone found any yet? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After more searching can't find RS to substantiate this person's alleged notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article such as this which is riddled with falsehoods is a BLP violation which must be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; problematic sourcing requires TNT at the very least. Montanabw^(talk) 10:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 15 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.