Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 November >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward W. De Barbieri[edit]

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

It is difficult to believe that an assistant professor (basically the lowest level of professorship and often not tenured) would meet WP:PROF criteria for inclusion. The question is whether his side-position as "Director of the Community Development Clinic" qualifies under our criteria. See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Sgarlata Chung, about an another professor article created by the same editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a director is not really a WP:PROF criteria and that school apparently has 400 students....Nothing on google scholar either. Galobtter (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete directors of minor programs at any given institution are a dime a dozen. Maybe if we had sources showing his role as director makes him an important person and inpactful in the larger community, but the one source here does not demonstrate such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as my delete opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Sgarlata Chung. By all indicators (citations, academic rank, administrative positions, etc) he is less notable than Chung, and I don't think she's notable either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Sgarlata Chung[edit]

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

The article has a claim in it that could be interpreted as meeting WP:PROF. The question is, does being a "co-director" of a law school's associated "Institute for Financial Market Regulation" (a position she shares with another faculty member) suffice to meet WP:PROF criteria? Here and there, I see mentions of her, but no real coverage that's independent. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward W. De Barbieri about another law professor article created by the same editor. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination based on the views of other participants. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as the other one. The law school has 400 students and that institute probably has way less. You have to be a president of a large university to pass WP:PROF as a administrative position. Nothing on google scholar. Galobtter (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deans of law schools may in general pass notability (although not for all law schools), and holders of named chairs generally do (depending on how selective such distinctions actually are), but with the massive proliferation of institutes of one kind or another throughout academia, being chair of such an organization does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find enough (or any) reviews of her book Business Organizations Law in Focus to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Director of an institute within a law school isn't a high-enough level administrative position for WP:PROF#C6. Google scholar shows no widely-cited papers (max citation count 26, single-digit h-index), so the other WP:PROF criteria look out of reach. And web searching for her name finds only social media and scholarly publications, without the in-depth published coverage that would let her be notable through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 14 November 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 Michael Kidson. Consensus is in favour of removing the article. Picking the redirect target under the assumption that this is what DGG was referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Blackett[edit]

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

Plenty of notability-by-association here, but nothing really supporting the notability of the subject himself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He did write a book about a teacher at his old school but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was a best seller -or that that it was particularly challenging task. In short it fails WP:AUTHOR JRPG (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to Kidson, where the book is already mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 15 November 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Water volleyball[edit]

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

COPYVIO from [1] Created by SPA, likely to promote book. Rhadow (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and the game has been covered in many reliable media stories. However, I do have serious concerns about the sourcing as I am seeing a number of likely sock puppet accounts adding in references in various articles, all linked to one particular self-publishing writer. In this article no-one seems to have spotted that for two years we've had an ostensibly serious journal being referenced twice, when Water Volleyball Journal is nothing but a home-made wordpress blog with no significant content. The same goes for the so-called World Association of Water Volleyball Clubs, another cheap wordpress blog created by the same person/sock. All this rubbish needs to go, but not the article itself. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's highly confused. Sockpuppetry on WP has nothing to do with external source reliability. Nor does whether something is published with WordPress (many of the world's most-used websites are; it's simply a content management system). I agree those sources are bogus, because they're self-published, of course. But so far you've actually just provided a deletion rationale, under cover of a keep with just vague assertions about RS without actually providing any.

You are quite right, unsigned. I apologise if I caused confusion, or failed to provide WP:RS to demonstrate a reason to keep. I must have wrongly assumed this one was just so obvious I didn't need to. So, let me offer: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and even this, or this. I don't think I ever asserted that Wordpress blogs are unreliable sources. I explicitly listed two used as references that obviously are, containing as they do just three or four pages each, no organisational details nor any worthwhile content or evidence of continued use, which you would expect from 'journals' or 'associations'. What is weird is that this page was created by an editor who has been creating nonsense pages elsewhere - but not in this instance, I feel. It'll never become an Olympic sport, but I'm sorry if I muddied the water (pool?) by bringing the SPA issue up. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If you have a way to recast the article without copypasta, I think that would be great. How about you turn some of that outside reading into inline citations, I would be happy to turn this into a speedy keep. Rhadow (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) BTW, I found another way to fake a journal, too![reply]
Keep, and admonish the nominator to do WP:BEFORE. Numerous RS are easy to find in seconds: Google News "water+volleyball"+OR+"aquatic+volleyball"+-wikipedia+-wiki, Books [2], Scholar [3]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 18:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly notable. Current state of article is irrelevant, as is who created it. Per the above citations, and many more, it's clearly a notable topic. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:VENUE, WP:BEFORE, and WP:N. A closing person may want to consider speedying as a clear WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 13 November 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Irene Batebe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All I find is passing mentions. Kleuske (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find more than passing mentions.[4][5] WP:GNG is not always helpful as a guide and it seems to me in this case an individual of this seniority is notable despite the paucity of references. The citations seem to me quite sufficient to avoid WP:BLP problems for the article. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added more inline references. Thanks. Fsmatovu (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now sufficiently referenced.--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added another source to demonstrate notability. Janet-O (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:15, 14 November 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 Gauteng. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PWV Megalopolis[edit]

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

Duplicate of Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging (now renamed/redirected to Gauteng. Only one article is needed to describe this region. Batternut (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gauteng. Redirects are cheap and this is plausible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 8 November 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. J04n(talk page) 18:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dando Drilling[edit]

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

The page reads like an advert: apart from one brief mention in a Guardian write-up of industry awards, all the references are from the company's own website. There's a ten-year-old comment on the talk page highlighting its advert-like nature, with no real progress in the interim. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion: it does not seem notable. Dormskirk (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: While there are a small amount of Google results, I could only manage to find one significant news article about the unveiling of a new drill for the company. EMachine03 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current and former McKinsey & Company consultants[edit]

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

There's no indication that the topic of the list meets our standards of notability. While the people on the list are (mostly) individually notable, there's no indication the consultants of McKinsey & Company as a group are discussed by reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as significant as any of our many lists of university alumni, or people from a place. Obviously the list must be limited to thosewith WP articles, but I supecgt most of the relatively few red-links would justify articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per section 7 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. EMachine03 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence A. May[edit]

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article really convinces me that an article is justified, and a search for independent coverage didn't find any. --Michig (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly lacks third party references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm ignoring the "closed discussion" !vote as they seem to misunderstand what notability is about: It needs non-trivial discussion of a topic in reliable sources (which IMDB is not). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kushi (actress)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Begoon 23:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she maybe notable in the future but now WP:TOOSOON, didn't meet points of WP:ACTOR also lacks coverage by reliable sources. Analysis of the present sources revealed they are mostly (it not all) fan blogs and ordinary web forums — Ammarpad (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actreess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. EMachine03 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Discussion a Actress is -notable actreess AccordingTo The Source Of Imdb And Has Been VerifiedBy Us So No Need To delete the articleAs Per Wikipedia Deletation Policy.Apostle Samsoin (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy McGee (sheriff)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search for reliable sources yields a blip of notoriety from the subject's actions Hurricane Katrina. A local folk hero, but still a BLP1E. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a one-sentence article that does not supply much information. If it is not deleted, it could be merged with the article on Forrest County. Vorbee (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County sheriff is not an office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie just because a person exists, but this isn't referenced to anything like the depth of reliable source coverage needed to get him over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county sherrif is not an office that gives default notability. A few have become notable for their actions or political outspokeness in this position, Arapio and David Clarke come to mind. However David Clarke is if anything most notable as one of the highest ranking people who held office as a Democrat to support Donald J. Trump for president. Both have had way more coverage in the media, were the sherrif of the most populated counties in their state, and way more people than McGee's county had.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 12 November 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. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's The Plan Short[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, no sources and no coverage in rs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- author blanked. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ashley[edit]

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

A bio with no meaninful biographical data and coverage is about the award. Blp that fails gng, suggest we delete and redirect to an article about the award. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BLP / WP:N fail. The awards, including "New starlet" are too insignificant to have generated 3rd party coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has won notable awards. The "Best Sensual Female" award was what the XRCO called their Best Actress award in its earlier ceremonies. She also won the Adult Film Association of America Best Actress Award that year. Every Women Has a Fantasy was a big film, winning awards and was inducted into the XRCO Hall of Fame 1 so she also meets criteria #2 of PORNBIO of "starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pornbio and gng fail. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ormskirk & District Family History Society[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG. There is one good source -- [6], but the rest are mere lists of various family history societies, or mere mentions, or ones with questionable independence. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though no doubt a hardworking and useful organisation for people researching their family history in west Lancashire. Article relies entirely on O&D FHS sources to support it. The one obvious independent source (West Lancs Buzz) is simply a very local website of a volunteer charity. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Sionk (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Such family history societies (of which there are dozens) no doubt do good work in transcribing records, but they are generally NN organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Thusara[edit]

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

This stub article has insufficient content to be an encyclopedia article. It is missing the subject's given name and his or her birthdate. There is no indication that the team Moratuwa or its venue was first-class on the date of the subject's sole appearance. Rhadow (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I thought we were over these. Why has it taken you this long to find them when they are in the same categories as each other, and decide that you dislike the article based on your own personal criteria? "Insufficient content" is not a valid rationale for deletion. "Doesn't note the individual's birthday" is nonsense rationale. The fact that the article exists is indication that the match in question was first-class... Bobo . 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have appreciated that you would have notified me when you had sent this article up for PROD, nearly seven days ago. The fact that you did not do this and continued to send this article for deletion is clear abuse of deletion tools and purposes. Bobo . 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced article that is not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - the article contains two links to independent sources referencing the subject. How much better sourced do you wish the article to be? Bobo . 19:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to show notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The sources provided are database entires rather than substantive sources and tell us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and first initial and that he batted right-handed. We don't have a forename or date of birth for example - in those circumstances I don't believe that we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. If we had a forename, date of birth etc... and the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class, List A etc... status) then I could be persuaded that there is a reasonable probability that those sources might exist. I would have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if those sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically a name on a database but Wikipedia is not a directory. One match, one mention but no substantial sources. With so little information -- even his full name is up for debate -- there is a near non-existent chance this individual would ever pass WP:GNG in the foreseeable future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN as a first-class cricketer and has therefore a presumption of notability. Further sources likely to be in Sinhalese and therefore not easy to access, but no reason to suppose they do not exist in a cricket-mad country. Nominator's aspersions re the Moratuwa Sports Club's notability are without foundation: the club played 96 first-class cricket matches between 1989 and 2009, though its first-class status was not continuous in that period. Nominator wrote on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:CRIN_wars that he would desist from these mischievous and time-wasting AfDs. Johnlp (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blue Square Thing. Two statistical database sources are insufficient to establish GNG. Dee 03 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A day in a life of a barely known individual hardly qualifies per WP:GNG. Blue Square Thing sums it up pretty thoroughly. Frankzappatwin (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another virtually empty article based on bare statistics, with sourcing so poor that the person's name cannot be even be determined. The only sources are statistics aggregators CricInfo and CricketArchive, which have been shown not to be independent of each other in the sense that one copies content extensively from the other (or in both directions), and which have been proven to have non-negligible rates of error. These alone are not good enough for the biography of a presumably living person, and there is no real prospect of anything reliable or substantial turning up. Finally, it's not even certain whether the club Thusara played for was a first-class club at the time of his sole match, so cannot even be shown to meet the ridiculously lax standards of WP:CRIN, even if that overruled our general notability requirements. Which it doesn't. Reyk _YO! 15:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails any reasonable notability criteria. It is time to reign in the far too over inclusive criteria for sportsmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 14 November 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 Dan Brown#Bibliography. Equally split between merge or redirect, but there is no mention of content ready to be merged over, so going for redirect here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deception Point[edit]

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

This article has long-standing unaddressed notability, style, and referencing issues. I don't believe the article as it stand fully qualifies for inclusion under notability guidelines for books, and the article as it stands is wholly a plot summary. Topperfalkon (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Brown#Bibliography. Given the author, there may well be a notable work to be made here, but until then the redirect will serve well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that redirect sounds reasonable to me.--Topperfalkon (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Dan Brown. Deletion really is a non-starter, but coverage that would justify a separate article looks borderline. Having said that, there's certainly some scope for improvement on what we have right now. The best I found was a fair amount in the book The Dan Brown Enigma, a Publishers Weekly review ([7]), and the Hindustan Times article "Why does no one care about these other two Dan Brown books?" (Deception Point being one of them). --Michig (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Michig. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 13 November 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 Super Y-League#South Atlantic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Fire United[edit]

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

Local youth soccer club, utterly NN. No evidence this meets the GNG. Prod removed by SPA who claimed to have added "numerous citations" ... those cites being (a) the site to an umbrella organization to which this club belongs, and (b) a Twitter feed (!). Ravenswing 16:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~George Pierce Park#Soccer~~Super Y-League#South Atlantic. While I'm agreed that this is "utterly NN" and thus does not require an independent article, pointing to the ~~park/facility~~league they compete in is a reasonable action (and that article already includes one line of suitable description), and the redirect is one that is likely to be useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Bushranger. To Super y league#south atlantic per giant snowman. Only can find mentions in the context of other stories. Galobtter (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Y-League. Not independently notable and I think this is a better target - what do you think @The Bushranger and Galobtter:. GiantSnowman 10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah! I'd completely missed the link to the league. Yeah, that is a much better option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it makes more sense. Galobtter (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per the above, a plausible search term but not independently notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems the most feasible option. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization with no reliable sources.NerudaPoet (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bushranger. EMachine03 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zar je važno da l' se peva ili pjeva? World Tour[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, promotional per WP:NOTPROMO and also fails WP:BALL : Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable. Notability isn't inherited, so the tour would have to pass WP:NTOUR, and the cited sources do not meet the criteria. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wait until after the tour and notability can be assessed then. There is no deadline for this and now is obviously too soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A recent spate of source additions don't help. Especially the only thing the VIP Brother 9 TV items say about the concert is that NetTV Plus is a sponsor, and some other additions don't seem to support their statements either. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon, non-notable per WP:NTOUR. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NTOUR. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Agree with other comments that this non notable current event not WP:NTOUR. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened (or is happening now) not sufficient to demonstrate notability. NerudaPoet (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patiala Airport[edit]

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

Absolute no notability, no sources ref's provided.Can be saved if proper sources/ref's are provided. Bingobro (Chat) 16:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, on the basis there seems to be very little to say, it is a small airport that doesn't have commercial (public) flights. Clearly any airport that has fare paying passengers is going to be notable. Unless someone can demonstrate that Pataila Airport is important for some reason, I'd say this article won't be missed. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article does require improvement, AfD is not for cleanup, and editors are reminded that with the exception of BLPs, sources do not have to be in an article for it to be kept, they merely have to exist. Furthermore, it is general, long-standing consensus that public-use airports are inherently notable, as part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, and given the location of this airport WP:CSB must be borne in mind as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it public use? I got the impression it wasn't, for example this wiki-ish listing says it was a private airport but is now a civil airport used by a flying school and a college. Sionk (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "civil airport" is another term for a public-use airport, so it does sound like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this airport has been used by a flying club^[1] (at least recently) and also has a regional DGCA office.^[2]. It also has an aircaft engineering college^[3].:--DreamLinker (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "LIST OF DGCA APPROVED FLYING TRAINING ORGANISATIONS as on 10/06/2016" (PDF). DGCA. Retrieved 11 November 2017.
^ "DGCA Offices". www.dgca.gov.in. Retrieved 11 November 2017.
^ "LIST OF DGCA APPROVED AME TRAINING INSTITUTES" (PDF). DGCA. Retrieved 11 November 2017.

Keep per Bushranger's and DreamLinker's comments. --do ncr am 03:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airports are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 00:45, 15 November 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. If a well established editor in good standing wishes to recreate a past incarnation of this page they can contact me for userfication of an older version J04n(talk page) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Ghani[edit]

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

i am unable to find coverage in the RS on the subject. this BLP looks dubious to me which contains OR which is promotional in tone. I just hope this is not a hoax article which have been here since 2010. Saqib (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Much of what is written in the article is absolute OR and falls foul of our WP:BLP policy. While the man has been named in the Paradise Papers imbroglio,[8][9][10] there is nothing significant for the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. On pure BLP grounds, this article should be speedy deleted. Lourdes 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: My guess is that all these 3 sources which you listed took the information from this Wikipedia page. --Saqib (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before 2 October 2017, this article was about the former Commerce Secretary of Pakistan ([11]). A new editor apparently repurposed the page. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in May 2016, the page was about doctor [12]. And in 2010, it was about a journalist [13]. I don't think any of the Usman Ghani is notable enough to warrant a bio. --Saqib (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The commerce secretary is likely notable per WP:POLITICIAN. DGG (talk · contribs) overwrote the original article about the talk show host for that reason. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Cabinet ministers, at least of major departments in major countries, are normally notable, though I think it may not be a formal guideline. But then we will need additional pages, because I think this businessman is also likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)`[reply]

My opinion is that this Afd discussion is based on the contents of the current article, not past or new individuals who may probably qualify as notable. As the current article stands, it is a straightforward WP:BLP violation, an attempt to create an ATTACK page, and should be WP:TNT'd and deleted asap. For example:

The following line is mentioned in the article: Ghani is considered as a liberal and extremely cunning in his business practices, according to Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa "to think that he is defined by religiosity and traditionalism, however, would be a mistake". This is a straight out deliberate false claim placed to attack the subject. The purported Ayesha Siddiqa made this statement with respect to another person known as Malik Riaz Hussain in a blogpost on a Wikipedia blacklisted site Kafila online (a copy of the post can be found here). The exact statement read in context is as follows: [...]Hussain has a good understanding of the values and religiosity of the middle and lower-middle classes, which the more traditional elite is alienated from. To think that he is defined by religiosity and traditionalism, however, would be a mistake.
Not one of the sources mentioned within the article contain the subject's name. The article cites another Wikipedia article List of Pakistanis by net worth to support the claim of Salman Ghani's net worth. No surprises that the same editor who is editing this article has added the details in that list, using another source which does not contain the subject's name.

It is clear that the attempt here has been to defame and attack the subject than anything else. This is grossly damaging to any living person. One alternative is that all the intermediate revisions containing the derogatory unreferenced (and falsely referenced) material should be rev-deleted. Policy combined with common-sense would dictate that we first move to protect the subject from any possible BLP violation and delete the article. I recommend that anyone who wishes to realign the article to any new/previous biography or even to re-create the current biography is free to do the same once the article is deleted. Thanks. Lourdes 02:18, 9 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Picchiotti[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Apparently had a number one single, but no indication of its content here. Not found in a Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the number-one single in question is "Turn It Up" by Mark Picchiotti featuring Basstoy, which reached no. 1 on the Billboard Dance Club chart in 2008. A previous single by the "group" (Basstoy was really just an alias for Picchiotti), "Runnin'", reached no. 3 on the Dance Club chart and no. 13 on the UK Singles Chart in 2001. So I think notability could be established, I'm just not sure whether the article should remain under Picchiotti's name or be changed to Basstoy... it probably depends on whether Picchiotti charted under any of his other production aliases (Future Force, the Absolute, etc.). Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a paragraph of content along with a chart table. Enough coverage exists to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, and the article can be further expanded if desired using the Billboard write-ups. As Richard3120 noted above, this artist has used a number of aliases so I'm inclined to keep using Picchiotti's name as the article title. gongshow talk 01:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are brief mentions of the subject and charting in niche charts. Not convinced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this has seven paragraphs and this has about three more. Those are more than trivial/passing mentions. Also, this is the UK's national chart. gongshow talk 01:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, was referring to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A top 20 hit in the national UK chart certainly justifies inclusion. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn or possibly snow keep. Still fails GNG, but editors think a fringe chart is enough to keep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is the UK Singles Chart a 'fringe chart'? It's one of the most important music charts in the world. --Michig (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on chart performance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Uk national chart list performance.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 14 November 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) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General education[edit]

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

This appears to be some sort of neologism or word made up to describe a type of education program, with the article randomly turning to Pakistan as an example. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. General education is simply a synonym for General studies or liberal education -- education for learning's sake. Rhadow (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the page to the disambiguation page it was in December 2015. This could have been done without an AfD discussion.-gadfium 01:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: Apologies, never knew it had been hijacked. I'm withdrawing this and will restore. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:18, 9 November 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. J04n(talk page) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Prophet[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, far more name dropping and piggybacking than citing to RS to establish individual notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article certainly has lots of peacock language that could be toned down, but Prophet has been a relatively well-known name in alternative music in the US for over thirty years. He has a detailed AllMusic bio [14] and interviews in Billboard [15] and the Chicago Tribune [16], for starters. Richard3120 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI - a question was asked regarding how an artist can get added to an AllMusic.com bio, and their response follows: Artist information such as photos, written biographies, discographies, credits, group membership, similar artists and other musician-related data come from our data provider, Rovi (now called TiVo). Please see the details on submitting information to them on our Product Submissions page. TiVo tries to add artist information, but can't make any promises about which artists and titles will receive this level of enhanced editorial coverage. However, you may send them your information for consideration by following the steps on the Product Submissions page. That method is not too unlike a Google collection of info, or FB collection of info. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible article, but the guy seems notable. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, too, Drmies - at first. I'm still digging, looking for solid RS that will establish his notability beyond what appears to be a limited cult/fan following, but all I'm finding is the ocassional "staged promotional" interview and various "about me interviews", and lots of passing mention. I saw this one NYTimes article linked to a Green on Red album but he only gets passing mention as lead guitar. He has 3 blue linked albums (independent lables/self-produced) and they probably won't pass N if nominated. Maybe all-totaled as a body of work, it might be a borderline pass, but I'm not finding enough notable associations for that, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person's works have been reviewed in multiple reliable publications: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. There's a chapter about him in this book. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 01:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review the sources you listed and refer to WP:N (music) which requires multiple, non-trivial sources. Listing reviews of songs does not meet the requirement: This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. A cursory Google search proves nothing - we have to take the time to review the sources to see if they pass N (music). ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. That quote in bold is from WP:NSONG, which helps outline criteria for standalone articles on individual songs, not musicians. I reviewed the above sources prior to listing them and find them to clearly illustrate non-trivial coverage of the subject. I'm happy to agree to disagree. gongshow talk 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage exists. He's obviously notable given even a cursory Google search. I'm really getting sick of wasting my time on nominations like this. --Michig (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudoku 4Two Multiplayer[edit]

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

Non-notable app. Only ref is a two paragraph mention in weekly round-up column and one of those paragraphs sounds very much like publisher blurb. Apart from that no solid sources to meet GNG found. Nthep (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: CSD was declined and I still can't find a source besides passing mentions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined by Ritchie333. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CSD: A3 shouldn't be applied in the first hour (and there's content now), and A7 doesn't apply to mobile apps. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Doesn’t meet notability criteria. NerudaPoet (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:53, 13 November 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. G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Securities[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. None of the sources cited mentions the firm, passing mentions in others regarding a lawsuit are carefully omitted (e.g. here). Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. Concur with nom on sourcing as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "representing parties on both sides" (Kleuske's missing cite in Law360) is legal malpractice nearly as bad as it gets – spending the client's escrow might be worse. If the article has been wikiwashed this badly, then a radical overhaul might be needed. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet our notability guidelines. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:28, 9 November 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 Selenium#Physical properties. Due to the technical nature of this material, the merge should be done by a subject matter expert. Please read the full discussion here for guidance on what material should be merged and what should be left out. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Optical properties of selenium[edit]

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

The purpose of this article appears less to give the optical (and thermoanalytical, electrical and dielectric) properties of selenium (of which if actually provides scant information), and more to describe the research methods that a certain researcher has used to ascertain those properties, and largely to hang a bunch of citations to the author's own papers. The topic of the article (various physical properties of selenium) would be better covered within the body of the selenium article itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to selenium. I'm not really seeing much worthwhile for a merge since it's mostly just being used to self-cite, so just redirecting should be fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also clarify due to some comments below for a merge that I did look over the article having a chemistry background, and I didn't find anything really relevant to merge. It was all pretty much just WP:COATRACK content not really talking about optical properties (even though the text sounds technical), but instead saying certain experiments have used selenium tangentially. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: I wouldn't characterize the experiments as "having used selenium tangentially" -- the research carried out by Jafar et al appears to involve investigating the nature of selenium thin films as used (or potentially used) in various applications (smart phone screens, imaging sensors, etc.) But the article doesn't actually report any of the research findings, instead concentrating on the research methodology. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially what I was referring to in that there's nothing really in the article itself that's feasible for a merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article that currently exists has little to merge, but the references from there may be useful. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Selenium by a knowledgeable and impartial editor, as some of the citations in Optical properties of selenium may be worth keeping. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The evident COI in 6 of the citations indicates the likelihood of bias and indeed overtechnicality. The properties of a thing are, well, core to its being and equally core to the main article, which is selenium. We won't need to talk much about the properties, just to name and cite them, and the main article is the place for that. By the way, nom, a merger doesn't require to be brought to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6 out of 16 is evident COI. if the article was writen by any other person, it will still refer to these exact six citations. it is like saying there are too many Hawking citations in the black hole radiation article! --Tarawneh (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, This article is part of the work done by wikimedians of the levant user-group, through its version of the Education program. The article is mainly contributed by Mousa Jafar (a 68 y old Prof.), a leading scientist in his field. We were really lucky that he even gave us the time to write that stub for Wikipedia. The article was intended to be about Physical properties of selenium (which is a huge deal in right now). It was renamed into Optical properties of selenium by WikiDan61 ( a move that I did not event try to argue with at the time). Prof. Mousa released some charts from his work under CC, and he is already preparing for a few other articles. Prof. Mosa is not a Wikipedian, and he is not after a "single page (stub) citation" fame and for sure he is not into the "hang a bunch of citations to the author's own papers" argument, you can simply refer to References to check that. lets all AGF, especially in a retiring Prof. He was welcomed with a BITE simply cause he had no idea how to talk balk on the wiki system, and his work is being undermined by my fellow Wikipedias, whom mostly have no idea what is the article is really about. The stub is bombed by COI, and at the same time by too technical templates! and then finally by this AFD. The stub is a legit work, it is a perfect contribution for a content that address a very important field. --Tarawneh (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. It was clearly a good user group experience. However, as far as the article is concerned, we're just of the opinion that an element's properties belong with the element's article. And since we think some of the cited material may be useful over at the main article, we're arguing for a merge not a delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap. Thanks for your comment. Physical properties of selenium is a very important field in the smartphone industry. I do agree that the physical properties section in the selenium article should be expanded, but merging is not the way to do it. It is like requesting the merge of Car article into the uses section of the Steel artile. Cars might be a good item to be mentioned in the steel article :P . No one will request the merge of Nokia 5 into the Nokia article, simply cause they are two different connected things. Yes, they might look good together for some people, but that is not a solid merge excuse. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a glance at Google Scholar, I am thoroughly unimpressed by the argument made above that Mousa Jafar [is] a leading scientist in [that] field and that the reference-bombing would be the same in an impartially-written article. In the refs, this is from 2014 and has 4 cites (including two self-cites) so far, that is almost two years old and has 3 cites (2 of which self-cites). This has 2 cites including one self-cite, but it is fairly recent. Maybe semiconductor research is a low-cite field, but I fear this is the academic equivalent of a walled garden.

In light of the above, I get a distinct WP:LINKSPAM feeling - but this should not prevent us to improve existing articles. There might be material from the sources that can be brought to the selenium article, but it is going to need a topic expert - I am moderately familiar with semiconductors, yet I could not make heads or tails of this ref. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry for the way my fellow Wikipedians are handling this, as there is clear misunderstanding of the way research is distributed and evaluated in the industry. To get what I mean please try to find any work done through the industry R&D using google scholar. Using google scholar to as a tool to evaluate such works is equivalent to searching for surgeon in a library; Dah, every thing should be there!

low-cite field, and academic equivalent of a walled garden! Really! You my friends are giving such a judge based being moderately familiar with semiconductors! I am sorry, but I fail to get the point; your are judging this based on your lack of deep understanding of completely un-relevant topic! Based on your backgrounds my friends, can you please at least try to explain the chart in article?

Citation spamming!!! "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia". Please try to provide a better references, instead of accusing others of citation spamming. I am not judging your research abilities, if you can find better references, then please do. If you think that selenium article needs to be expanded then please start working on it. No one is stopping you. But for God's sakes, please stop moving this into a WARZONE; not find anything wrong with the article content doesn't mean attacking the contributes to push for ending the article existence. Personally, I feel this this hole thing of requesting a marge of this article, using an AFD, and defending it, is really based on nothing but a BLINDMEN judgement. --Tarawneh (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you understand how it works here, despite your citing of multiple guidelines. Being more familiar with the topic X than another editor does not give you the right to dismiss their concerns about how an article about X is written. If it worked this way, Wikipedia would be flooded with articles claiming all sorts of nonsense written by self-called topic experts (for an extreme example, head to crystal healing and ask yourself if this is what the dream article of a "topic expert" would look like). That the article is overly detailed, not really about what the title says, and spammed with links of dubious value are problems that non-topic experts can evaluate.

For the record, if I tried to read one of the refs (having access to it and some training in reading scientific papers, which may not be the case of many AfD editors), it is because I believed I could extract value out of it for the selenium article. I could not, but I readily admitted someone else maybe could. But I am not sure anyone will want to try, given your reaction. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more posting about the "not many cites on GScholar" argument, collapsed as to not clutter the page, even though the above makes me feel compelled to answer.

My point about "not many cites on GScholar" was a tangential one, but your reaction is interesting. It is not a great metric, because some fields cite more than others, etc. but your answer is (paraphrased) "it is used much in the industrial R&D, just not cited in academic articles". Very well, so it is unprovable. In that case, it would be great to drop the appeal to authority "X is a great scientist and wrote the article, hence the article should be safe from deletion unless an even greater scientist comes" (which BTW was not a good argument against deletion to start with). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: the article content was copied into Draft:Physical_properties_of_lead_iodide. Not sure what to make of it. On its face it is a new user copying a current article as a template to make their own, but I have a hard time to believe they found the article under discussion here by chance. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the extent of adding some of the content to Selenium#Physical_properties, and evaluating the worth of the references and porting over what's topical and relevant of these (slimming down the over-representation of that single work group). As it stands, this reads like the abstract of a methods paper - not material that requires its own article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:34, 16 November 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.

Orna Gadish[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest National Football League trades[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory/catalog. These trades are not related to each other, aside from having at least 10 players in them, so this fails WP:NLIST. There is no specific criteria for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the harm in this - it is true that the different groups of trades are not related to each other, but neither are the individual attempts in the Long jump world record progression. I don't see a policy-based prohibition making this article impermissible. bd2412 T 03:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the long jumps, though, there's a concrete world record. There is no trade record. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not they are related to each other or if there is a record, the key question is whether enough reliable sources talk about the grouping. Surely people can make lots of interesting lists, but we try to objectively filter them on Wikipedia by the groupings that independent sources actually talk about.—Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:LISTN in that a "list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I cannot find multiple independent sources that talk about this grouping of "largest" trades. The 18-player trade with Herschel Walker gets mentioned a lot on its own (ergo Herschel Walker trade), but I don't see enough sources that talk about other "largest" trades, where the number of involved people is the grouping criteria. (Lots of sources on other "big" trades, but based on their subjective impact, but little directly on "largest" or sheer size.) Record books by the NFL are not independent. I would allow this source of "The NFL’S Largest Trade" from the Pro Football Hall of Fame (even if I'm not entirely sure if they are funded at all by the NFL).—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find this article, this newspaper, as well as this (take that for what it's worth). In addition, quite a number of articles talking about the individual trades talk about them as being "one of the largest trades in NFL history in terms of the number of players involved." CThomas³ (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The first article you identified is also from the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Per WP:N, we would still treat multiple articles from the same publisher as just one source for notability purposes: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The newspaper article you provided from The Indianapolis Star can be viewed by others here (I have access to Newspapers.com.) It's a verbatim copy of the list text provided in the HOF articles, printed in advance of the Ricky Williams trade. Finally, the last one you provided, a 2010 article from Bleacher Report written by a college student, does not seem reliable. The site was an amateur sports blog famous for clickbait lists, whose reputation only shored up after being acquired by Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) in 2012, when it subsequently hired some full-time professional writers with traditional journalism background.—Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well. In my opinion the entries on the list definitely pass WP:NLIST. The two criteria that NLIST offers are notability of the individual entries and reliable sources verifying they are members of the group. Certainly the vast majority of players pass WP:SPORTSPERSON in their own right, and they are all verifiably employees (or former employees) of the NFL and members of the NFLPA. The trades themselves also pass both criteria; not all are notable enough for their own article, but they only need to be notable as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article, and I would be surprised if any NFL transaction involving a notable player were missing from his article. Regarding their membership in a group, they are all definably NFL trades: each is a transaction among NFL teams involving employees of those franchises. Furthermore, the list itself passes WP:LISTN: an accepted criterion is that it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources (emphasis in original); Googling something like "biggest trades in NFL history" (most lopsided trades, dumbest trades, you name it) brings up a crapton of results from a multitude of prominent reliable sources. These sources all slice and dice this sort of content constantly, especially in the offseason when there's not much to talk about other than player movement. Now this exact list may or may not have been discussed, but certainly trades in general are discussed as a group ad nauseam; what this list does is choose a specific set of trades. And speaking of selection criteria, these seem fine to me, with the exception of the minimum number of involved players/picks. However, that's merely a cleanup issue, as the list already has a de facto criterion of 10 (which keeps the list nice and manageable). I think if we add that to the article, we can probably speedy keep. CThomas³ (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Googling "biggest trades in NFL history", but this article's title is not "biggest", it's "largest" (i.e. "List of largest National Football League trades"). A search on "largest NFL trades" yields little on the "largest", with most hits having "biggest" in their title. The largest NFL trades just don't seem to be discussed that much as a group. Sure, Wikipedia:ITSTRUE applies to this list's contents, but notability is how Wikipedia distinguishes itself from fan wikis, where this may be more appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list itself doesn't appear often. But it does get (somewhat briefly) discussed as a group as one of the notable features of the individual trades. See [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and more. Could it be argued that they are passing mentions? Sure, but it certainly seems to be an integral part of the notability of the individual events, which (at least in my opinion) would lead one to the question "well, what are the largest trades in NFL history?" and thus the desire for the list. CThomas³ (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus, 2 votes each so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or trade to the Cleveland Browns for a dozen players at random - a fair deal). Sheer numbers are just trivia. [[List of ~~most important~~ NFL trades]] would be viable - see Top 15 trades in NFL history (nfl.com), Top 10 in-season NFL trades (ESPN), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Browns would miss the deadline if you tried... Fax machines are hard. Carrite (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:LISTN, a list is considered notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Searches here reveal a number of reliable sources that discuss NFL trades involving the most players. Separate from the Bleacher Report article discussed above, see, e.g., (1) Pro Football Hall of Fame, (2) Akron Beacon-Journal (1987), (3) Associated Press (1989, article carried in numerous newspapers, this one provided as example), and (4) The Indianapolis Star (1999). Cbl62 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in light of the sources Cbl uncovered. I was leaning toward delete since all I could find was the PFHOF source that others have mentioned. Lizard (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed from my earlier delete. Meets LISTN based on additional sources cited by Cbl62.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a star to Cbl62 for doing the digging on this. I'm surprised, really, but there it is! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Synology products[edit]

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

This does not appear to qualify for an article as per WP:LISTN, and also qualifies for deletion as per WP:NOTDIR. None of the listed products appear to have their own standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't the place for a company's product catalogue. Neiltonks (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT CATALOG, and there's nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bericap[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Recent additions have been copy vios from the company's own web site - probable COI editing. Searches reveal the usual clutch of directory listing, social media etc but nothing of any substance or reliability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM stub. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best source appears to be a one-paragraph case study on eastern European plant expansions here. Clearly a company going about its business, with various routine announcements, but I am not seeing evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 12:13, 8 November 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. Procedural close as page was deleted per request from article creator . (non-admin closure) Galobtter (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Sinha Roy[edit]

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

PROD was removed by page creator because the times of india will check if the person is a quack. That has nothing to do with notability. Only sources are interviews. Doesn't pass WP:GNG Galobtter (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter-It eludes me why you choose to reference my statements out of context;

Since you raised doubts as to the particular source, I mentioned in the edit summary that TOI has sufficient editorial judgement not to write about quacks. The first statement in the article Annie Sinhala Roy is India's only female tunnel engineer is directly referenced from the interview .This goes to show that the interview itself is not disqualified as a reliable source (Unlike interviews by Arnab Goswami) and that the facts said in the interview have been verified (It is a claim that the person did not make in the interview rather one which TOI made).If you read thoroughly there are also other sources some of which reference the same interview.-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not raising doubts about the source - this was my PROD statement "Non-notable, as only source is an interview." The interview is reliable, but that's nothing to do with notability of a person. Galobtter (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the content is correct but only one news agency which has different website gave coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interview doesn't count as coverage for WP:GNG. Galobtter (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did they take her interview if she is not notable? Marvellous Spider-Man 16:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people are interviewed if they have a interesting story to tell. That doesn't mean they're notable; reread WP:GNG. Galobtter (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Galobtter:Instead of linking GNG please add a tq ed portion of the relevant guidelines which states what you have just said (interveiw do not add to the notability of the subject).Thanks-(User:Forceradical on Mobile)_103.242.190.125 (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent as all the material except for the questions is straight from the person. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Even if we did consider an interview to be coverage, it would only count as one piece of coverage as all the other websites appear to be using the same interview, and it's not sustained coverage - we'll need at least 2 or 3 different pieces of coverage on the person. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Galobtter (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews are not indepdent reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Annie+Sinha+Roy"&client=ms-android-samsung&dcr=0&tbm=nws&prmd=inv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi29evdorvXAhWRDuwKHcZxAJkQ_AUICigC&biw=360&bih=512&dpr=3 Insufficient coverage of any depth or persistence in reliable sources to pass the most basic WP:ANYBIO criteria. — fortunavelut luna 09:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted by WP:G7 request from the article creator. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens–Patriots rivalry[edit]

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

Rivalry between two teams isn't really a subject worthy of its own article, unsourced "trivia" to put it bluntly Nightfury 09:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very few sporting rivalries reach the level of notability in and of themselves, and this is one which clearly doesn't. Slightly unusual that - at the time I write this comment - the majority of the games in the tables in the article deal with the Patriots and the Colts, but there's surely a rational explanation there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article creater copied the stuff from another article to use as a template. I'ts been removed now. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I feel there is nothing special about this rivalry, WP:NRIVALRY states Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline. Although I would have never created something like this, I believe WikiOriginal-9 has shown that enough RS have called it a rivalry to satisfy GNG. The article desperately needs a lot of work, but I am happy to help with that if it survives this deletion discussion (not sure it will). - Galatz ^Talk 03:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I don't think of this as being a major rivalry, I do nonetheless believe there is sufficient sourcing to establish it as a notable rivalry. Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above sources showing it passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:25, 14 November 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. It seems the article got chopped as an A7 before this debate ran its course. Oh well, another one bites the dust. (non-admin closure) And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twist (App)[edit]

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

Verging on promotional "app". No need for this to be in Wikipedia Nightfury 09:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was moved from Draftspace by SPA editor in apparent violation of WP:COI/WP:PAID. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable app without broad coverage and written in obvious promotional tone. — Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flutter, Flutter, Butterfly[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod removed and replaced with a long plot summary and a Facebook source. Wikipedia is not a means to promote a new book. As per WP:NOTPROMOTION Domdeparis (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article seeking to misuse the encyclopaedia for clearly promotional purpose: "Please do not hesitate to join us so that we can help to offer solace ... Even a small contribution will help bring peace ... Please help, join us ...". This is not a platform for soliciting money or righting wrongs. I am flagging this as a CSD G11. Aside from that, neither a link to Facebook nor to a failed Kickstarter nor to the text published via a self-publishing firm establishes WP:NBOOK notability and I am not seeing better. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did hesitate about a G11 myself but sometimes a deletion discussion means that each time the article is recreated (and something tells me this might be) we can G4 it each time, but either way this article has to go I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the CSD template as it's not totally promotional; there's a book, it exists. It's not yet notable though. fish&karate 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This book just isn't notable yet. Searching for references to it in WP:RS is difficult in English because there's a nursery rhyme with the same name, and lots of associated hits, but I couldn't find anything which is related to this book and is independent of the author in the first few pages. Given its topic, I rather hope the book becomes notable in time but at the moment, it's not. Neiltonks (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, it is clear the page largely exists as promotion for the English translation of the novel. Even the "Background" section is a copypaste of the back cover blurb: [42]. The problem is that in order to evaluate the notability of this book, we have to judge not just the English translation, but the original Korean novel, since there is a possibility it has notability (earning a translation into another language can be an indication of notability). Unfortunately, this page is so poorly done it doesn't make it clear what the original novel was. I can only assume looking at the English wiki page on the author Eun Mihee that it is her 2009 novel Butterfly, Butterfly: 나비야 나비야. The author page links to this news article on the book: [43]. I can find a few other articles ([44], [45], etc.) but my Korean is close to zero, so I can't do much with this. I would appreciate the participation of someone who kknows Korean. Michitaro (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you, before nominating and since nominating I tried to see if this was a translation of Butterfly Butterfly but the links on the author's page are very poorly done and do not link to the correct book. Chrome does a basic translation of the pages which gives the general gist. There are interviews with her in Korean about the writing of this book but they all date from 2016 if I remember rightly so I don't believe it is a translation of a previous book. Domdeparis (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is a translation, since the cover mentions the translator. It would be rather unusual for an author who seems to be fairly popular in Korea to have written a full-length novel in Korean only for English translation, but the page (or the publisher's website, for that matter) does not make it clear. I tried to find the Library of Congress record, which will often give the original title of a book if it has been translated, but this does not have an LOC record yet. It is not in WorldCat either. Michitaro (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it is a selfpublished book and a failed crowdfunded project it is possible that it won't be there for a while. Domdeparis (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know I'm repeating others' comments, but this book is new, not notable by any WP criteria for notability, not widely read, and self-published. There is nothing that is independent of the subject itself, and its page is an advertisement. Ira Leviton (talk) 12:28, 12 November 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. J04n(talk page) 19:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga T. Weber[edit]

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

Many brief notices, no substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG there was a Keep decision in a previous AfD less than a fortnight ago? AllyD (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reading more carefully, I see the article says that she was the originator of the national Constitution Day celebration, not just the state one. Butin that case wouldn'twe expect more non-local references ? DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom should be withdrawn - there is no policy basis for sending the article back to AfD less than two weeks after an unequivocal consensus for keep. Any irregularities in the previous process should be handled through an appeal, not a new nom. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom should be withdrawn I agree wholeheartedly with Newimpartial. I was one of the people who worked really hard to bring this article up to standards and it clearly passes GNG now. Weber is not just mentioned in several Ohio news sources, but also in books as well. In addition, there is no prohibition against using local sources to measure notability, so she passes GNG easily and most likely ANYBIO since this holiday was her idea and crusade. This AfD is really puzzling to me, especially, as AllyD points out, it's only been 2 weeks since a near unanimous keep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom should be withdrawn - There are multiple sources, be it local. This AfD should be withdrawn.ConstitutionTown (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage did Weber have outside of Ohio? czar 05:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar! It doesn't matter if she has coverage outside of Ohio. The fact is that she is covered in many reliable sources (Many of which I added). GNG does not specify that a person cannot be local. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is a presumption, not a formula that sources = article. A lack of sources from outside a small region can indicate that the subject is only of local interest or incidental to a larger topic. Surely Weber should have sources from outside Ohio? czar 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, I have to say that it's too bad that there aren't more national sources, though I'm not surprised: it's the 1960s and going through news archives isn't easy, nor are all of them digitized. Now, I have to seriously disagree with you on GNG. Without GNG, we have no guideline as to what will be included or not in Wikipedia. If we just throw it out whenever we wish, we aren't going to get anywhere. I understand where you are coming from, but I do think that GNG is a sort of formula. If there isn't a standard for us to use, then anything goes. In this case, I want to emphasize that local coverage is certainly permissible (and valid) through GNG. Local topics are still of interest to thousands, if not millions of people, so I find the argument unpersuasive. It's important to stand by our standards and guidelines on Wikipedia. If they need changing, that's a different argument all-together. In addition to GNG, Weber certainly falls under the standard, ANYBIO, for her creation of the holiday not just in Ohio, but nationwide. Because of her an entire town has its nickname. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the bolded part of the GNG (the word "presumed"), as in there are other factors than simply having sourcing—for instance, that the majority of the content and sourcing is about Constitution Day (which does have wider coverage and includes Weber in its scope). I imagine this was the sentiment of DGG's brief nom. The standards/guidelines in that case would be to follow the proportionality of the sourcing and cover Weber in context of the Constitution Day article, indeed as the Ohio section already does.

I've done a fair amount of bibliographic work from the American 60s, so I can appreciate the fact that not everything is digitized, but most major publications from that era are, including the ones that would note Weber's biographical details vis-à-vis something as public as a state holiday. Local and special interest publications would likely be among the last to be digitized, but we'd also have an indication of that offline sourcing from existing bibliographies, which tend to be compiled on independently noteworthy figures. czar 04:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:ConstitutionTown from the same town as the subject or is there a COI here? Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legacypac, ConstitutionTown hasn't said where they are from, but from their edits, I think they're from Louisville, OH. However, that said, I don't think it would be proper to ask someone to "out" themselves either as being from the town or not. Let's assume we're dealing with someone who has a particular interest, as their Contribution list shows. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the nom has (unwisely, in my view) declined to withdraw the nom, and since no policy grounds have been proposed to delete the article (which clearly meets the GNG), someone unINVOLVED should close it keep tomorrow, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close This should not have been put up for consideration right after it passed an AfD discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might have been strategic for me to wait a while longer, but at this point I cannot withdraw it, as others have commented for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To assume good faith, I imagine that you have not read the discussion carefully, DGG. There are no !votes for deletion, whether per policy or otherwise. The merge !vote is neither here nor there, and neither is the cross-talk about the validity of strictly Ohio sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Length of reference has nothing to do with whether there is adequate coverage in RS to develop a biography without doing original research. Guidelines clearly allow for chaining together information. Meets GNG. Also, while there is no requirement that sources not be regional, two different Congressional Records, i.e. not Ohio sources, confirm that page A6653, page 14041 her unique accomplishment was recognized outside of Ohio. While not substantial, they defeat the argument that the only recognition of her accomplishment was in her home state. SusunW (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Constitution Day (United_States)#History, which is what most of the content is actually about, not the otherwise apparently unremarkable person. Sandstein 12:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus about a redirect, but one can be created editorially. Sandstein 12:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine (raliway point)[edit]

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

My PROD was declined without a reason given. However, I believe this location still fails WP:GEOLAND. Per theBC Geographic names database, this is merely a railway point. As it is not a settlement or populated location, it is not inherently notable per GEOLAND criteria.

I believe it would fall under "Buildings and objects" point 3, "Artificial features related to infrastructure", which suggests that such features should meet GNG to be considered for inclusion. Based on my WP:BEFORE search, I do not believe this railway point meets the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BC Rail, which I believe is the railroad that the point is located on. (An alternative would be to Giscome, British Columbia, which is the nearest - former - settlement.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the result of a redirect created by @Northamerica1000: from Wolverine, British Columbia, and he didn't notice his typo. Alerting him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm: Ugh, I didn't see my spelling error in the title when I performed the move. I have no concerns if anyone wants to rename it using proper spelling. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. We all do mistakes, also settles my nerve, seeing it was also created under that name... Nightfury 15:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait until the AfD runs out, and then if keep rename or if redirect rename-then-redirect, as moving an article at AfD can break things in the backend. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not favor redirect to either of the above articles as they do not mention the railpoint and anyone redirected there would not find anything. I'm not sure what this railpoint is. On google maps, the coordinates given (which are what are in the BC Geo Name system), are near a rail - but not any junction or siding or anything I can see. I wonder if the coords are correct. May this have something to do with the Wolverine Tunnel on the branch that goes to the Wolverine Mine, or the Wolverine River Bridge on the same branch? If someone can add something more substantiated to some article I would have no objection to a redirect. But as it is, Delete. MB 00:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Duhamel[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for actors. Fails WP:NACTOR. Even though there is a long list of credits, none of them are significant roles in any notable productions. There's a clear lack of sources to support any sort of notability. Alaindrouin (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list of credits include a lot of short films and minor parts - nothing notable that I can see at this time. PK T(alk) 17:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invionics[edit]

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

No sources presented that are independent of the company, just press releases and the company's website. I was unable to find anything online that indicates the company meets our notability guideline at WP:NCORP. Obvious WP:COI issues here as well. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:A WP:SPA article on a company, describing their initial proposition but without evidence of attained notability. Searches find occasional announcements, such as this June 2017 acquisition but nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unimportant company, insubstantial references. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 15 November 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 Alicia Yoon. I will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge any of it into the new target. J04n(talk page) 19:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peach & Lily (beauty brand)[edit]

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

not notable The references are just notices and press releases or based on press releases. TheNNYT article is a bout Korean beauty products in general , and just mentions the company. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any potential refs on Google News, just one press release. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - On the fence with this one. There is a lot of press although much of it is brief mentions. There are some that are in-depth but they talk more about the founder and how she got started with the company. Since an article already exists on Alicia Yoon, I would say merge the information there. References like this and this show her notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am a little concerned that the creator made the page under a disambiguation title. This always gives me a sense that someone is trying to skirt guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I found out why. This was part of a previous COIN discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And Peach & Lily was deleted before. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Alicia Yoon in lieu of deletion. There is enough coverage in reliable sources to verify information about the company. Material about the company can be merged to its founder, Alicia Yoon. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alicia Yoon as an alternative to deletion. The latter article has remarkably survived an AfD (where I voted "delete"). At very least, Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. I don't see anything worth merging, just promo 'cruft. Delete & Redirect would also be acceptable for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 9 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddles (cat)[edit]

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

It seems to me like the majority of coverage on the cat comes after being hit by a car and killed, thus WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – trivia that hardly merits a mention in Jacinda Ardern's article, let alone an article of its own. Akld guy (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Can't see how this article is any different to Larry (cat) or Palmerston (cat), people love famous cats, including Paddles. Should also be noted prior to death, Paddles has been a social media sensation and was in the news a fair bit (E.G. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41757958) GWA88 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this cat (amongst others) was noted before its untimely demise. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other famous "politicats" like Humphrey. Lots of politicians have pets, and they attract media interest, and often a celebrity following. Paddles seems to have been no different in that respect, so the article should stay. This is Paul (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had already gained considerable noteworthiness prior to its death - articles about Paddles made the media worldwide, from Canada to India to the United States, largely as a result of having a twitter account with over 10,000 followers. Grutness...wha? 10:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you delete this cat, you have to carry out the same actions for those mentioned per GWA88, as there's no discernible difference in notability or quantity of internet coverage. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary,they have been noted for years.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant worldwide media coverage, as crazy as it seems. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many other political pets with articles on Wikipedia. --Zerbey (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is entirely WP:NOTNEWS, no matter what these people — apparently a majority — say. Some people mention other cats, but those cats were in the news a lot more than this cat, who is only in it because he got crushed by a car. Also, this cat is just a cat — just someone's pet (before you say "but what about Putin's pet dog, remember: in the news a lot more). Unlike Akld guy, I do think it should be in Jacinda Ardern's article, but it does not deserve its own article. Calicodragon (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even reported by the BBC before it died. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cat only got broad notice for a very short period and is not comparable to those who have been written about for years.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the pet of a prime minister does not automatically demonstrate notability, as demonstrated by the sub-stub length of the article which would lose absolutely nothing by being given only a passing mention in the article Jacinda Ardern. For people arguing that political pets are generally notable: will we have an article for each and every one of the Kennedy's pets? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Justice for Paddles! He was very influential with a Twitter page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.211.59 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to correct location. Should this be struck? Not doing it myself because I'm not sure, but this is clearly not a policy-based vote, more than a hint of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and Twitter pages have nothing to do with notability. If it were so, Carrie Fisher's dog would have his own article, and he shoudn't. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense comment (and only edit) left by anon with no intention to contribute to the topic. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add anything of worth. "Justice for Paddles!" provides no constructive reason why it should be kept. Rusted AutoParts 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case...-A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Depth of coverage was global. Definitely notable. Ajf773 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Prior to death was barely noted for having an online social media presence. It's not a unique trait as many noted figures make social medias for their pets. Coverage of death doesn't automatically make the individual notable. And in this case Paddles is definitely not notable. Rusted AutoParts 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Poor arguments on both sides. Scrapes past notability I reckon - received quite a bit of coverage before death (or else would be WP:BIO1E in spirit) and more now with the death. Galobtter (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: could you elaborate on what's poor about the delete arguments? It's my personal opinion, but "just scraping" shoudln't be the measure of how an article is kept from deletion. I'm seeing some pretty strong points about deletion, and a google search for me only showed two instances of coverage outside of the death. It's only being reported because Twitter is making a big hooplah over it, and sure the coverage is notable, but the cat? Not so much. Rusted AutoParts 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: could you elaborate on what's poor about the keep arguments? It's my personal opinion, but "just scraping" is enough of an indication that an article should be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, it is scraping through. I'm seeing points for keeping which are totally consistent with the notability standards, and a google search shows numerous instances of coverage outside of the death, of which I have already linked four. Paddles was already big news in New Zealand and had independent articles (significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, the major standard of notability in Wikipedia). Its coverage has increased because of Twitter, but was already considerably present beforehand. As such, this constitutes not one burst of news activity but two, one at the time of the election and one at the time of death. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice condescension. Rusted AutoParts 02:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you :/ Though if you had accurately stated the facts in your original reply, it wouldn't have been necessary. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are the cat was only talked about on a global scale for a week before it died. It’s not an indication it’s had a lengthy notability and in death it’s notability will not grow further. And your condescension was not needed period. Adds jackshit. Rusted AutoParts 01:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you considered it condescension - it was not intended as such. The questions I asked were genuine, and the way you had worded your comment was the perfect format for asking them.; It was also the perfect way of indication the errors in your comment. If something os "just scraping" it means it is just passing the guidelines, so why do you consider that something that just passes the guidelines doesn't pass the guidelines? It may be that you could only find a couple of Google references, but my earlier comments had easily shows that Google presented more references than you suggest. And it was clearly not the case that the fuss about the cat was entirely due to Twitter, as you intimated. The easiest, quickest, and most effective way to point out those errors was simply to mirror your questions. If you regard the use of a common rhetorical device as condescension, I apologise, but the intention was to counter your somewhat spurious arguments and to simultaneously ask relevant questions, not to condescend. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider people copying the way I write something to counter my arguments to be condescending, so intentional or not I found it quite rude. Rusted AutoParts 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you found it so - but you would have a lot of difficulty in debating, because it's a common technique. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is calling your opponent an idiot, Nazi or virgin. Throwing out "random" memes in place of words is common enough. You could discredit his argument by attacking his spelling and it'd be par for the course, but still just of those annoying things you see online. If you're serious about persuasive writing, structure your own points parallel to each other, not someone else's. Nuanced imitation is sometimes flattering, but immediate mimicry is straight-up talking bird shit. If you've ever tried conversing with a real parrot, you'll understand why someone might write off a similar introduction, even if everything after it is something like human. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're going to allow 100+ articles about Swedish standardbreds ("trotters"), who nobody but Swedish gamblers and those in the Swedish standardbred business ever heard of, we can keep an article about an obscure cat that nobody has ever heard of, either.Tom Barrister 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAX. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Kind of special. Allegedly. Definitely cute. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say remove the content to Ardern's article, but it doesn't seem notable enough, which tells me all I need to know about Paddle's notability. Sorry, Paddles. RIP. Bennycat (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Who are you kidding? UW1941 (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cat was featured in the mainstream media extensively, both overseas and in New Zealand, prior to his untimely demise. Helenabella (Talk) 00:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page for a cat that no one outside of New Zealand ever heard of until it was dead? Get rid of it. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prior to her death, Paddles had international media attention including Vanity Fair, BBC, India, Singapore and Malaysia. WWGB (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even still some articles published a week before death I don’t think makes a strong case for having a lengthy notoriety. Rusted AutoParts 18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, the distinction between national fame and international fame is usually irrelevant to determining notability. This is English Language Wikipedia, not Whatever Country You Live In Wikipedia. De Guerre (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Gillie believes this article is a keep, due to the number of independent sources cited, he would also be happy with a merge to Jacinda Ardern, i concur.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage before its death had established general notability. Schwede 66 09:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite enough coverage before the death. Passes WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because Paddles had 10,000 followers on Twitter does not mean she deserves a wiki article, unless she set up the account with no human intervention. I'm sure when Paddles was born, her first thought was to have a Twitter page. I love my cats but they, nor Paddles, should have a Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcardnut (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Bizcardnut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge Based on length of the article. If the article does get expanded (but with what?? a photo?), I would lean towards a weak keep ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can always be expanded. The presence of a deletion tag usually stops further development. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, animal barely notable, only gained somewhat significnt attention on social media before death, (only 10,000 followers, there are animals with way more, example Grumpy Cat, with 2.4 million followers on instagram) and the sources are only about three things, the cat interrupting Trump, the twitter account, and the death of the cat. However, move the info to Jacinda Ardern groig (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jacinda_Ardern#Personal_life. No depth of coverage of the cat will ever exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the cat and its unusual paws were covered by the BBC (for example) before she died. No in-depth coverage of any politician's cat will ever exist. But it does. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, not notable. Which article will be the next? Justin Trudeau's Chewbacca Socks? --Norden1990 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the cat and its unusual paws were covered by the BBC (for example) before she died. Notability beyond a pair of socks which I don't believe have any reliable sources discussing them in news outlets around the world prior to the death of the Star Wars' socks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Trudeau's sock choice has definitely got some notable and reliable coverage by GQ Magazine, The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Toronto Star, Maclean's and The Guardian... to name a few. But I think we can all agree that his sock choice doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly wouldn't capitalize "socks". We might in Justin Trudeau's Chewbacca, Socks. But some people think it's wrong to call all wookies Chewbaccas, arguing the one they know had a unique personality, history and/or ability. I say he's a mere furball, like the rest, and would consider redirecting his crazy huge article to Mammal if not for all the strangely significant coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This item by Radio New Zealand's Mediawatch programme (in my opinion) sums up the silliness/stupidity of this non-debate. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018621022/dead-kiwi-cat-goes-global) David French (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, another reliable independent source...Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Galobtter (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of not liking the article; it's more a case of this being unsuitable for Wikipedia. If you were to ask most New Zealanders, they would tell you that they had never even heard of this cat until a fake twitter account was started for it in October of this year. Next you'll be telling me we should have an article for Tom Selleck's moustache because it has at least three twitter accounts. David French (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, because barely notable is still notable. De Guerre (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this time (12 hours before scheduled close) there are 13 "keep" votes, 3 for "weak keep", 12 for "delete" and 4 for "merge". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I takes truly exceptional evidence or a pet to be notable just for being a pet, and I do not see it present here. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Barack Obama'sand Vladimir Putin's dogs, Bo and Konni respectively, have their own articles. So, there is a precedent to create articles dedicated to a leader's pets. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paddles, like the pets of many other politicians, meets the general notability guideline, namely that she had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I also note that this coverage occurred on multiple occasions before her death. Claims by those above that she is only known for her death are simply false. Disclosure: I created the Paddles article. Chrisclear (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Jacinda Ardern, the notable owner, from whom all supposed notability derives. Sandstein 12:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we close this? groig (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Perez (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Contested PROD but does not meet any notability criteria.PRehse (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Competed in non-tier one event. Does not meet notability criteria.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. He currently has no top tier fights so he is a long way from the 3 necessary to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and the coverage is merely routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 14 November 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. On the whole, the delete arguments have it: crime produces news coverage, because if it bleeds (or greeds, I guess), it leads. But this is not such a significantly unusual or noteworthy crime as to rise above the routine, expected coverage of criminal activity that follows most vaguely interesting criminal deeds for the purpose of selling papers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Gardner[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are quite a bit of news coverages and legal opinions regarding Clark Gardner. I believe it may make sense to rename the page to Clark S. Gardner, as most of the articles come up when the name is searched with the middle initial. Sources include SEC and FINRA official documents as well. I believe the article could be slavaged. Possibly need to remove some details that are thinly sourced, but the bulk of the article is well-documented. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet GNG. Stealing 1.5 Million USD is not that much in the US security industry. Article is mainly sourced to PRIMARY court and enforcement agency documents. Coverage in news is lacking. "Clark S. Gardner" does not bring more results than "Clark Gardner". Finding coverage of him in secondary RS is difficult - mainly some local papers and not much else.Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for original research or sourcing to primary sources, which this article is full of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, I don't mean this in any offensive way, but it appears that you are a fellow BYU alumni/attendee and fellow Mormon. I hope this does not cloud your view on the deletion of a criminal alumni and this view of deletion is purely based on impartial review? Your comment supporting deletion is fairly brief. - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to open a comment by saying you do not mean it to ve offensive it clearly and without question is. As has been said earlier, SEC official documents are primary sources and add nothing to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But one could argue that the SEC documents don't actually violate WP:PRIMARY because they are removed from the situation after the fact, however, the primary sources, such as the SEC documents are reported on in secondary sources including these places: Daily Herald John S Chapman Israel S Neuman KSL Fitapelli Kurta - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Is should be noted that Anon1-3483579 (article creator and commentor above) had 150 edits, mainly related to Steve Down (Clark Gardner is/was an employee) - which is also full of issues of BLPCRIME (though perhaps notable).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause a ruckus. Yes I am the creator of the page, and I created it as a sort of offshoot of the Steve Down page (which has been overhauled and still needs more overhaul) when I noticed he did not have a page but had a large web presence, as he seemed relatively notable to me. But if this discussion decides otherwise then so be it. Just trying to offer my two cents as to why I believed it to be notable.- Anon1-3483579 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of good sources. Coverage are good overall for this person, though article it needs some changes as mentioned above. Article status are good overall. Name change also an good idea.BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of article has received WP:SIGCOV and the article itself is sourced properly and i see no reason why this article should face such scrunity because on average the subject is notable (see WP:BASIC) and if notability is present, it deserves a stand alone on the encylopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clark Gardner meets WP:GNG. I welcome the discussion cause in cases like this it is important that the coverage is significant. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Changing to delete by the tougher WP:NCRIME standard. This article is basically about crime. gidonb (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill white collar criminal who stole enough money to buy a single run-of-the-mill mini-mansion in an ordinary upscale neighborhood. There is nothing at all notable or encyclopedic about this person or his pedestrian crimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of good sources points towards different.BabbaQ (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is even more clear to me now that the sources shows clear notability here. Both for WP:GNG and COVERAGE. Tending towards change to Strong Keep. But will stay at Keep from my !vote above.BabbaQ (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, will you please do me a favor? Please point me to the very best two or three sources that provide significant biographical coverage of this person. Because all that I see is brief routine coverage of a run-of-the-mill low level white collar criminal. If this guy is notable, then hundreds of millions of people are notable. I simply do not see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I can't speak for BabbaQ, but I'd like to give my input on your question. I believe one sigificant piece of coverage is located here: Daily Herald, as well as these sources: John S Chapman Israel S Neuman KSL News Fitapelli Kurta. In addition, Clark Garder receives additional notoriety from his involvement as part of some other companies, seen in articles like this one: The Oregonian. I don't see what is so pedestrian about these crimes, or why he would fail to meet WP:GNG with this coverage? - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anon1-3483579, if you care about keeping this article, you will have to add sources to the article. ~~By our polices it is not necessary for a keep but~~ WP:BLPCRIME is a sensitive matter and the current sources in the article are not good enough. ~~I looked beyond (as one should) so reached the conclusion we should keep this.~~ Last tip: stop the fixation with middle initials. gidonb (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically add the KSL-TV one and other independent news sources with significant coverage. The legal sources are not independent. gidonb (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anon1-3483579. I read each of those sources that you provided, and I am unpersuaded.

Please read WP:Notability (people), in particular the section about crimes and criminals. Here is the relevant section:

"For perpetrators

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

These crimes are utterly routine white collar crimes of no historic significance whatsoever. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about this person's crimes. These are routine embezzlement and investment crimes, the most banal and common sorts of white collar crimes, as indicated by the predictable cookie-cutter writing style of the coverage of these routine cases. There are many thousands of such cases every year, the vast majority of which are not notable crimes, and neither are their pathetic perpetrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the reporting of coverage so far, has been fairly routine. The arrest warrant is not available for establishing notability, as it is merely a by product, an automatic ejection of being arrested. The paper I think has perhaps a duty of care, or for historical reasons, to report the warrant. So it doesn't establish notability. The other references, apart from the Oregon one, are also routine, as they are they agencies that are working on the investigation, or partner agencies, and it natural to report on what your ownself is working on, for advertising purposes. It is white collar crime, fairly routine. scope_creep (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ignoring PR releases, the subject has been basically covered in a 4-5 local newspaper items (after you ignore unrelated "Clark Gardners" (a not uncommon name - these is a meth dealer [46] and a number of unrelated (except common name) people who have more coverage than this one). The primary court/SEC/FINRA documents do not establish any notability (and are borderline for us). This is simply not enough to demonstrate notability of any person - let alone an article with rather serious BLPCRIME/attack-piece concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. There are multiple good arguments to delete, and the only one to keep is that newspapers have included his name in news stories. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of substantial coverage in RS. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Selvik[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources appear to be routine coverage, interviews, or unreliable sources (e.g. blogs) only. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of notability, plenty of coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although subject of aforementioned article does have some notability, it does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO.Celestina007 (talk) 08:45, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 as member of two notable bands: Gorgoroth and Wardruna. Here are some Wardruna / Gorgoroth / Selvic coverage in what look to be scholarly books:

The Lyre of Orpheus: Popular Music, the Sacred, and the Profane by Christopher Partridge.
Satanism: A Social History By Massimo Introvigne.

This is way more than what many typical 'wiki-notable' musicians garner. Plus news stories, album and tour reviews, etc. Sufficient to keep a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namibian ultra marathon[edit]

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

No sources, all the external links are dead, and I can't find anything to verify the history of this race. There are, however, other ultramarathons in Namibia, so if a list were to be built out (which were significant enough to merit its own article), this could potentially be merged into it. Limited blog history lists Tom Maguire's result, for example, but that's the extent of information. In addition, no clear notability. Upjav (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable sports event. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confianza[edit]

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

Appears to be original research mainly through synthesis. DrStrauss talk 08:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, this does not appear to be anything like original research mainly through synthesis. In a few seconds I found ISBN 9780816501083, a book largely devoted to this concept from a university publisher. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - per good sourcing. Per WP:INDEPTH.BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the available sources and my web research, no justification for this article. Article and sources fail to establish that Confianza is widely considered unique in the literature versus Trust (emotion). If it was established as moderately unique, e.g. a regional/cultural variance, a redirect/merge solution would still be in order. As literature stands right now, Confianza should be (and is) trust on es.wiki. I consider the en.wiki for Confianza a WP:FRINGE article with elements of WP:OR. gidonb (talk) 05:45, 15 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Uncontested. Sandstein 12:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conshafter[edit]

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

WP:YAMB. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 08:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fely Constantino[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Few independent, reliable sources give him in-depth coverage (Gsearch) DrStrauss talk 16:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not locate any sources that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. No useful sources at the Tagalog Wiki article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 13 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INTER Active[edit]

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

Non-notable book series by non-notable authors. Lacking in any coverage reliable or otherwise that I can find. Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (books) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 8 November 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. czar 05:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chihayafuru Part 3[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The only notability for unreleased films comes from significant media attention, something which this has not elicited in major publications. DrStrauss talk 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please refer to WP:NFF: for unreleased films, the issue is not just the degree of media attention, but whether the commencement of principal photography can be confirmed by reliable sources. Given that this is a very popular series in Japan, there are already a number of articles, including in major papers like the Mainichi, that confirm the commencement of principal photography: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], etc. The first previews have even been released: [56]. Michitaro (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NFF. Simple. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:42, 11 November 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 Cyanotic (band). Per WP:ATD. A sole !vote for keeping seems to be verging on WP:OSE, while redirecting was suggested by multiple nominators. Further, rejecting redirection because the page is promotional smacks of using AfD for cleaning-up purposes. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch Mode Recordings[edit]

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

Little evidence of notability according to WP:NCORP also, artists on the record label seem to not meet notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this article should be kept until the artists that they promote are proven to lack notability. Champion seems to throw around the claim that the artists are not notable, but their pages remain on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this is independent from Cyanotic (band) in any real way. The only independent coverage I can find is akin to [57], which doesn't suggest that it meets WP:GNG, I'm unsure if there's a music-specific guideline here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Power) There is verbiage at WP:MUSIC, bullet 5, about the importance of labels; at WT:MUSIC there is an ongoing discussion about a possible notability guideline for labels, since WP:CORP is a really poor fit for determining a label's noteworthiness. As for this label in particular, this seems like a good candidate to Merge into Cyanotic (band), since they run the label and there isn't a whole lot to justify a separate article here. Chubbles (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Labels do not inherit notability from their artists. If the label itself doesn't have significant coverage, then we lack the secondary sourcing with which to write a separate article that does justice to the topic. Cyanotic started the label, according to our poorly-sourced article, and there is no sourced content to merge. Redirect to Cyanotic (band). czar 12:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails GNG and there are no indications of notability. I disagree with a redirect because G11 - this is really a self-promotional page - there aren't even any worthwhile references and because this is really an obscure topic that doesn't require a redirect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyanotic (band). Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 16 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jussi V. Koivisto[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage to satisfy ANYBIO, I do not believe any of his papers have been cited enough to meet criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. The corresponding page at the Finnish Wikipedia provides no sourcing as well. J04n(talk page) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From a quick internet search I couldn't find anything on Koivisto to make the article notable. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Manelolo (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus remains that POY gives a presumption of notability. I don't know whether that consensus is present for POM, but that is not the issue here DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugena Washington[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lack of GNG and has dubious sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Background: tagged for WP:PROD by the nominator (Sportsfan 1234) with the comment:

Non-notable person

Proposed deletion contested by me (Syrenka V) with the comment:

Presumptively notable as having "received a well-known and significant award or honor" (Playboy Playmate of the Year) per section WP:ANYBIO within guideline WP:BIO

Whatever any one person thinks of Playboy Playmate of the Year, it is, without reasonable doubt, a "well-known and significant award or honor" from the point of view of the general culture. And the General notability guideline (WP:GNG) is only one section of the guideline WP:Notability (WP:N), which unequivocally states that the GNG is not the only way of showing presumptive notability (emphasis added):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The guideline WP:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) is one of those listed in that box. Contrary to popular deletionist opinion, a topic need not necessarily meet WP:GNG in order to have a presumption of notability. Does Eugena Washington meet WP:GNG? We don't even need to know.

Likewise, the section WP:NEXIST within the guideline WP:N states as its title:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Deletionists frequently allege "dubious sources" currently cited within an article, but that is not a valid basis for deletion according to the guidelines. I'm aware that there are essays that make claims to the contrary. They're simply wrong.

This nomination for deletion was contrary to the guidelines and should be rejected out of hand, without any need to improve the article beforehand, or to investigate its sourcing, or to evaluate whether its topic meets the GNG. Doubtless as a recognized Start-class article it does need improvement to make a better encyclopedia—but not to justify keeping the article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "award" here is not one based on merit, and so does not fit our guidelines for "significant award or honor". No other reason to have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Based on merit" is not in the guidelines. Only what is well-known to the public and seen as significant by the public matters.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Like most, if not all, of the hundreds of Playmates of the Month (See List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, while recognizing that not all of them have their own main articles) and dozens of Playmates of the Year (see List of Playboy Playmates of the Year), she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a Tu quoque argument. Rather, it supports the inference that the award recipients are notable precisely because they received these awards. Indeed, because she was the last of the Hugh Hefner/Playboy Mansion announced POTY winner, she is unique. This is the bar we have set; she is over that bar. Res ipsa loquitor. I did update the sourcing some. She appears to have a successful modeling career.

If there is a cognizable proper reason to delete this, while ignoring the other articles, I'd like to hear it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 11 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Resul[edit]

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

I failed to find in-depth coverage so we can write without WP:OR. If the invention is notable then we should have an article on the invention which we have but not on him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to meeting notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate notability under WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. Article was written by a now-blocked user with a history of poor quality contributions on Kurdish-related topics. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 9 November 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 List of rain deities. And other appropriate lists. Sandstein 12:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mangwe[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough significant coverage for this subject to meet notability standards. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more than a WP:DICDEF really, and more important I can't find any verification of this by searching. Not notable at all. The king of the sun (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly not a dictionary definition, being about a god rather than a word, and verification is not a problem as there is a source cited in the article and more can be found by this search. It seems that this is one of the names of the god most commonly known as Leza, used when he provides rain, and about whom we don't have an article. The best outcome would be for an article to be written about Leza and for this to be redirected there, but I don't have time at the moment to write such an article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is improperly categorized as fiction, mythology is not fiction but culture/history. Anyway, the topic does appear mentioned in several sources, if briefly. I think it should be merged to some list of deities, with a possible mention in Ila_people#Culture section which is currently a sad joke. From Lists_of_deities#Sub-Saharan_Africa (another underdeveloped section...) I found a possible merge target at List of African mythological figures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a god which people believe exists and have written about. enough said. Dysklyver 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find sources to support that statement. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding no indication of that which doesn't originate with Wikipedia, unfortunately. Lots of indications that it is a place name though. Artw (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, this should be a Merge to List of rain deities (which should be expanded beyond a simple WP:SAL). I agree with the IP editor that an article to be written about Leza would also be a plausible merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 13 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Given the weird history / hijacking, it may be better to TNT and start again, if this group is even notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced, could not find sources describing notability according to criteria in WP:BAND. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could have been a speedy as there is no claim to notability or a PROD, but this will do as well. I searched using the Google links above and modified it so that it looked for "The Sign" "Volta" (the family name of the band members). Nothing that meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment The article was hijcaked 2015-11-29T07:58:35 by an anon from Tasmania, the location of the subjects as it currently stands. The version before the hijcaking has a claim to notability, but is unreferenced as well. If nominator does not object, I suggest withdrawing the nomination and let's revert to that version and try to source it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: Feel free to revert it, but I'm not prepared to withdraw the AfD yet, since notability is still questionable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert discussion

If the AfD goes forward, would it be a problem to restore the earlier version? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz:Feel free to do so, just leave the AfD tag on the page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will SALT both this ~~and Esoh Paul Omogba~~ as a result of repeat recreations and numerous AfDs. Edit: nope, Esoh Paul Omogba is already SALTed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esoh Omogba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much has changed since the last afd. Omogba has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Deletion was contested on the grounds that he signed for a Burmese club, but since he never made a league appearance for them this does not satisfy WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - James Demetriou was contested for deletion but the article was kept since he played in a competitive match between two fully pro clubs in the Cypriot Cup. Same goes for Esoh Omogba, who scored a goal for the Burmese club (Yadanarbon F.C.) in the 2016 Mekong Club Championship against fully pro Vietnamese team SHB Da Nang and made other appearances in the competition- see here and here. In addition, his Transfermarkt profile reads that Yadarabon are going to buy him in the winter transfer window as well which supports my keep request.Das osmnezz (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, and what may happen in future is no basis for notability. The Mekong Cup is an inter-season friendly affair and does not satisfy WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not realize that it was held prior to the new season. But WP:NSPORT reads that 'Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable' which Omogba has done as the Mekong Championship is still considered competitive despite it being pre-season. And the team he scored against (Da Nang F.C.) is full-pro (competes in the V.League 1). Das osmnezz (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omogba was allowed to play that match, despite not having the necessary paperwork to complete his transfer to Yadanarbon. Given that sort of lack of regulation, this is not a competitive fixture. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Can you please find me the source that states that information regarding his paperwork?Das osmnezz (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I misread the article. The paperwork issues were with his transfer leaving Yadanarbon. The basic point still stands though. The Mekong Cup is a promotional completion organized principally by Toyota rather than anything actually competitive. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:59, 8 November 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) 11:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this article satisfies any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look through the article and the citations, I actually think he might just pass GNG on the Nigerian and Cambodian areas of Wikipedia, but this is English wikipedia and feel he fails GNG here. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the previous point of keeping is up to now not fulfilled. Basic WP:GNG requires significant coverage which he still doesn't have and he didn't meet the specific WP:NSPORTS. Anytime he met or received wider coverage for something in the future the article can be created but we can't keep article for someone in expectation that he may made league appearance in absence of wider coverage too. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of the general notability guidelines. It is high time we make the inclusion criteria for sportsmen a bit more restrictive. The current ones are way overly permissive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of article plays in a fully professional league with Yadanarbon F.C. and there is a fair bit of coverage (also yes a lot of it is routine). Article arguably passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He does not play Yadanarbon F.C. After a year in Burma with no competitive appearances, Omogba returned to Boeung Ket. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 14 November 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. Also note Chan Tai San, which uses much of the same sourcing. czar 12:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lama (martial art)[edit]

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

My original goal upon coming across this article was to clean it up, but the more I read the more dubious the sourcing appeared. The article needs a massive cleanup for tone and MOS compliance but I don't want to waste anyone's time if this the article isn't worth keeping in the end.

I am not a martial arts expert (or even anything remotely close) but this article is sourced exclusively to obscure websites and the WikiProject Martial arts member I consulted suggested that this article doesn't meet the GNG and I'm inclined to agree. I'm happy to retract this nomination if good sources can be found, but I could not turn up any. A Train^talk 13:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sources in the article show the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. My own search also didn't find good coverage. Of course, if someone can show good references I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 14 November 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. Speedy deleted by Fish and karate: CSD A10, a duplicate of Judas (album). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judas (Fozzy album[edit]

There's already a page for this album and the title of the page is missing a closing bracket. Such a page is redundant. Daerl (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "LIST OF DGCA APPROVED FLYING TRAINING ORGANISATIONS as on 10/06/2016" (PDF). DGCA. Retrieved 11 November 2017.

[2] "DGCA Offices". www.dgca.gov.in. Retrieved 11 November 2017.

[3] "LIST OF DGCA APPROVED AME TRAINING INSTITUTES" (PDF). DGCA. Retrieved 11 November 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]